97 . Area of Caracas358 and a certificate of July 5, 2003 issued by the 32° Public Prosecutors’ Office at a National Level and the 126° Public Prosecutors’ Office of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas.359 392. From the mentioned certificate it can be concluded that, in effect, on July 5, 2003 there were State agents present at the “Los Mecedores” station, where there were transmission antennas of several television stations. However, the drawing up of the official document offered as evidence was requested by the legal consultant of the channel “Globovisión”, based on the fact that this company was the beneficiary of a precautionary measure that protected its real estate and other property, and that document proves that the agents did not allow the installation of a microwave antenna, which resulted in “Globovisión” not being able to broadcast live. That is, the official document does not refer to facts occurred to RCTV or its personnel. It was based on what occurred at “Globovisión” that RCTV’s proxies requested the mentioned sections of the Public Prosecutors’ Office that the “content of the Precautionary Measures of Protection on the Transmission and Retransmission Antennas of RCTV [ordered by a domestic court] be officially communicated in writing to the General Commander of the National Guard so that he may immediately make that protection effective.”360 393. The Court observes that even though the presence of the Army agents at the “Los Mecedores” station, where there were RCTV transmission antennas, on that date was proven, evidence proving that the signal of RCTV was intervened or that the mentioned situation affected the rights of the alleged victims to receive and impart information, in the terms of Article 13 of the Convention, was not presented. * * * 394. In short, it has not been proven before the Court that the three official letters issued by CONATEL regarding the content of a program transmitted by RCTV and the interventions to their broadcasts constituted illegal and indirect restrictions to the right of the alleged victims to seek, receive, and impart information, which would be considered a violation to Articles 13(1) and 13(3) of the American Convention in their detriment. X REPARATIONS (APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 63(1) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION) 361 395. It is a principle of international law that any violation of an international obligation that has caused damage entails the obligation to repair it adequately. 362 That obligation is 358 Cf. brief presented on July 9, 2003 before the 2° and 74° Sections of the Public Prosecutors’ Office of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas (dossier of evidence, volume IV, folios 966-975). 359 Cf. records of July 5, 2003 issued by the 32° Section of the National Public Prosecutors’ Office and the 126° Section of the Public Prosecutors’ Office of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas (dossier of evidence, volume IV, folios 1084-1089). 360 Cf. brief presented on July 9, 2003 before the 2° and 74° Sections of the Public Prosecutors’ Office of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas (dossier of evidence, volume IV, folios 966-975). 361 Article 63(1) of the Convention states that: 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.