58 of other rights. The arbitrary harm to job security may even affect a person’s subjective identity and even exceed this affecting third parties concerned. 190. Although any dismissal entails a sanction of the greatest severity, the Court underscores that, in some cases, it has particular characteristics that entail greater or special severity as a punishment that require full judicial protection. In this case, the particular severity of the punishment of dismissal arises because the harm to job security was reinforced by the presumed victim’s condition as a democratically elected representative and by the violation of the right to express his ideas freely. 2. Conclusion 191. Based on the above, it has been established that: (i) the second instance proceedings failed to assess the victim’s defense arguments, and several other courts failed to correct this; (ii) the first appeal for annulment was heard and rejected by the same court that had ratified the dismissal; (iii) the amparo proceedings did not rule on the substantive (constitutional) rights alleged by Mr. Lagos del Campo, considering that the matter was res judicata, and (iv) he was required to exhaust a remedy that, at the time of the facts, was illusory. Therefore, this Court finds that the State violated Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Mr. Lagos del Campo. VIII REPARATIONS (APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 63(1) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION) 192. Based on the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention,259 the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has produced harm entails the obligation to repair it adequately, and that this provisions “reflects a customary norm that is one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility.”260 193. The Court has established that reparations should have a causal nexus to the facts of the case, the violations that have been declared, the harm proved, and the measures requested to redress the respective harm. Therefore, the Court must analyze the concurrence of these factors to rule appropriately and pursuant to the law.261 194. Reparation of the harm caused by the violation of an international obligation requires, whenever possible, full restitution, which consists in the re-establishment of the previous situation. If this is not feasible, the Court will determine measures to ensure the violated rights and to redress the consequences of the violations.262 195. Based on the violations of the Convention declared in the previous chapters, the Court will proceed to examine the claims submitted by the Commission and the representatives, as well as Article 63(1) of the American Convention establishes: “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.” 259 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25, and Case of Acosta et al. v. Nicaragua, supra, para. 209. 260 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 Acosta et al. v. Nicaragua, supra, para. 210. 261 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations, supra, para. 26, and Case of Acosta et al. v. Nicaragua, supra, para. 210. 262