45 149. Regarding the specific situation of the alleged victim in this case, the State did not dispute the allegation according to which, even though Mr. Neptune was kept alone in his cell during his stay in the National Penitentiary, this cell was located near the other prisoners, including those who had been convicted. Yvon Neptune, Ronald Saint-Jean and Mario Joseph also indicated this in their respective statements,204 and it was not contested by the State. Accordingly, it can be considered proven that, for most of the nine months during which Mr. Neptune was detained in the National Penitentiary, even though he was alone in his cell, he was not separated from the convicted prisoners as required by Article 5(4) of the Convention. In this regard, the State did not cite the existence of exceptional circumstances to justify the failure to temporarily separate the accused from the convicted prisoners. 150. Based on the above, the Court finds that the lack of separation between accused persons and convicted persons to which Mr. Neptune was exposed while he was detained in the National Penitentiary constitutes a violation of Article 5(4) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. * * * 151. For these reasons, the Court finds that the State is responsible for the violation of the right to humane treatment embodied in Article 5(1), 5(2) and 5(4) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Yvon Neptune. X REPARATIONS (Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention)205 152. It is a principle of international law that any violation of an international obligation that results in damage establishes the obligation to repair it adequately.206 All aspects of made before notary public (affidavit) by Ronald Saint-Jean, supra note 185, para. 7 (folio 429), and testimony given before notary public (affidavit) by Mario Joseph, supra note 81, para. 23 (folio 425). 204 Cf. Application submitted by the Commission, supra note 3, paras. 42 and 55 (folios 111 and 114); statement made before notary public (affidavit) by Yvon Neptune, supra note 6, para. 15 (folio 451); statement made before notary public (affidavit) by Ronald Saint-Jean, supra note 185, para. 7 (folio 429), and statement made before notary public (affidavit) by Mario Joseph, supra note 81, para. 23 (folio 425). 205 206 Article 63(1) of the Convention stipulates 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. Cf. Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25; The Saramaka People v. Suriname, supra note 36, para. 186, and Albán Cornejo et al. v. Ecuador, supra note 38, para. 138.