66 of the interested parties. Even though it is reasonable to consider that the proceedings mentioned refer to complex issues that involve rights over traditional properties, this Court considers that the State is responsible for the violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of that same instrument, given the duration of the judicial and administrative actions regarding the sales and allocations of traditional lands to third parties beyond a reasonable period of time, in detriment of the Community of Triunfo de la Cruz and its members. B.3. The investigations related to the alleged threats and deaths against members of the Community of Triunfo de la Cruz 252. The Court recalls that in the chapter on facts it indicated that several complaints had been filed regarding acts of violence and threats against members of the Community of Triunfo de la Cruz (supra para. 88), without there being information on whether they were investigated and the status of those investigations. On the other hand, there is no evidence that the State initiated the investigations for the murders of Oscar Brega, Jesús Álvarez Roche, Jorge Castillo Jiménez y Julio Alberto Morales ex officio (supra para. 88). The State had the procedural opportunity to refer to those investigations and did not present any information in that sense. 253. Therefore, the Court finds that the State is responsible for the violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of that same instrument, for the failure to investigate the acts denounced by the Community and its members, and for not having started the investigations for the murders of Oscar Brega, Jesús Álvarez Roche, Jorge Castillo Jiménez, and Julio Alberto Morales ex officio. VIII. REPARATIONS (Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention) 254. Based on Article 63(1) of the Convention,236 the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has caused harm entails the duty to make adequate reparation237 and that this provision “reflects a customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility.”238 Additionally, this Court has established that the reparations must have a causal nexus with the facts of the case, the violations that have been declared, the harm proved, and the measures requested to redress the respective harm. Accordingly, the Court must analyze the concurrence of these factors in order to rule appropriately and in keeping with law.239 Article 63(1) of the American Convention states: “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 freedom that was violated. It shall also rule, if appropriate, that the consequences of the measure or situation that constituted the breach of such right or freedom be remedied and that fair compensation be paid to the injured party.” 236 Cfr. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs, para. 25, and Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of October 05, 2015. Series C No. 302, para. 286. 237 Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru. Reparations and Costs, para. 50, and Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras, para. 286. 238 Cfr. Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs, para. 110, and Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras, para. 288. 239