that the investigation conducted by the Ministry of Justice was ineffective or negligent. Therefore, it is not possible to declare a violation of the Convention in relation to this point. 464. On the other hand, this Court notes that Damas Vega filed a complaint with the Sentence Execution Court for having been locked up in a maximum security cell for 72 hours, on September 28, 2008, without receiving an explanation of the reasons for his transfer and being held incommunicado for more than 20 hours (supra paras. 60 and 239). On November 21, 2008, the Sentence Execution Court declared this motion admissible and ordered “the immediate restitution of his rights” (supra para. 239). Consequently, this Court considers that the State has already remedied this matter and, in application of the principle of complementarity (supra para. 281), will not make additional considerations in this regard. C. Conclusion 465. In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the State did not violate Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Damas Vega. IX REPARATIONS 466. Based on the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention, 642 the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has produced harm entails the obligation to make adequate reparation, 643 and that this provision reflects a customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility. 644 467. Reparation for the harm caused by the breach of an international obligation requires, whenever possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists of reestablishing the situation prior to the violation. If this is not feasible, as occurs in the majority of cases of human rights violations, the Court may order measures to protect the rights that have been violated and to repair the harm caused. 645 468. This Court has established that reparations must have a causal nexus with the facts of the case, the violations declared, the damage proven, as well as the measures requested to repair the respective harm. Therefore, the Court must analyze such concurrence to rule appropriately and according to the law. 646 469. In consideration of the violations of the Convention declared in the previous chapter, the Court will analyze the claims presented by the representatives of the victims, as well as 642 Article 63(1) of the American Convention establishes 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.” 643 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25, and Case of the Xucuru Indigenous People and its members v. Brazil, supra, para. 182. Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, supra, para. 25, and Case of the Xucuru Indigenous People and its members v. Brazil, supra, para. 182. 645 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, supra, para. 26, and Case of the Xucuru Indigenous People and its members v. Brazil, supra, para. 183. 646 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 110, and Case of the Xucuru Indigenous People and its members v. Brazil, supra, para. 184. 644 141