54 reply from the Office of the President.203 This calls into question the efficiency of said procedure. In any case, an appeal to the President does not satisfy the requirement under Article 25 of the Convention to provide adequate and effective judicial remedies for alleged violations of communal property rights of members of indigenous and tribal peoples. * * * 185. The Court thus concludes that the State has violated the right to judicial protection recognized in Article 25 of the Convention, in conjunction with Articles 21 and 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the members of the Saramaka people, as the aforementioned domestic provisions do not provide adequate and effective legal recourses to protect them against acts that violate their right to property. VIII REPARATIONS (APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 63(1) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION) 204 A) OBLIGATION TO REDRESS 186. It is a principle of International Law that any violation of an international obligation that has caused damage gives rise to a duty to adequately redress said violation.205 The obligation to redress is regulated by International Law in every aspect.206 The Court has based its decisions in this matter on Article 63(1) of the American Convention. 187. In accordance with criteria established and reiterated in the Court’s jurisprudence regarding the nature and scope of the obligation to redress,207 as well as the aforementioned considerations on the merits and violations of the Convention determined in the previous chapter, the Court will proceed to analyze the parties’ arguments concerning reparations, so as to order the relevant measures to redress the damages. 203 Petitions presented by petitioners before the President of the Republic of Suriname on January 15, 2003 and April 16, 2000 pursuant to Article 22 of the Constitution of Suriname, supra note 119, (folios 182-185, and folios 204-205), and Petitions filed in accordance with Article 41 of the 1992 Forest Management Act on October 24, 2005 and July 1, 2000 (case file of appendices to the application and Appendix 1, appendix 17, folios 182-185, and appendix 18, folios 205-208). 204 Article 63(1) establishes that: “[i]f 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”. 205 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25; Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz, supra note 50, para. 156, and Case of Zambrano Vélez et al., supra note 50, para. 131. 206 Cf. Case of Aloeboetoe et al. v. Suriname. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 10, 1993. Series C No. 15, para. 44; Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz, supra note 50, para. 165, and Case of Zambrano Vélez et al., supra note 50, para. 131. 207 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 205, paras. 25-26; Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, para. 43, and Case of The “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.), supra note 49, paras. 76-79. Cf. also Case of La Cantuta, supra note 179, paras. 200-203, and Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison, supra note 8, paras. 414-416.