-55d) “Publish a copy of all the operative paragraphs of the judgment in the national media, and disseminate its content and the public apology”; (e) In his final arguments, he requested that Chile should be ordered “to adopt legislative measures to provide a legal framework for the procedure of processing the application for protection embodied in Article 20 of the Constitution”; and (f) Regarding costs and expenses, he requested that Chile should be ordered to reimburse the expenses and costs that the proceedings under domestic law and within the inter-American system have signified for the victims and their representatives. He requested US$50,000.00 (fifty thousand United States dollars) for professional honoraria before the domestic courts and before the interAmerican system; US$4,000.00 (four thousand United States dollars) for “operating and administrative expenses, and US$6,000.00 (six thousand United States dollars) for the “presence of the victims’ representatives before the Commission and the Court. The State’s arguments 147. Regarding reparations, Chile indicated that: (a) “The claims in the [Commission’s] application lack any purpose, because the information requested has already been provided and the guarantees requested are in the new Chilean legislation on the right to information.” “Should the State’s international responsibility for the alleged violations be confirmed, there has been no damage that justifies reparation”; and (b) “Based on the fact that in its Report on Merits the Commission concluded that the State had violated the rights established in Articles 13 and 25 of the American Convention, it had informed [the Commission] that it was considering […] a reparation of a symbolic nature that would encompass the situation of the rights violations of which Messrs. Claude, Cox and Longton were victims, and also publicize the progress made by Chile in the area of access to information.” The Court’s findings 148. In view of the facts described in the preceding chapters, the Court has decided that the State is responsible for the violation of Article 13 of the American Convention in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, to the detriment of Marcel Claude Reyes and Arturo Longton Guerrero, and of Articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Marcel Claude Reyes, Arturo Longton Guerrero and Sebastián Cox Urrejola. 149. In its case law, the Court has established that it is a principle of international law that any violation of an international obligation that has produced damage entails the obligation to repair it adequately.108 In this regard, the Court has based itself on Article 63(1) of the American Convention, according to which: If the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by this Convention, the Court shall rule that the injured party be ensured the enjoyment of his right or 108 Cf. Case of Baldeón García, supra note 2, para. 174; Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al., supra note 93, para. 294; and Case of López Álvarez, supra note 72, para. 179.