Also, this principle governs the actions of all the organs of the State, in their respective spheres of competence, particularly when exercising punitive powers. 268 236. In relation to Article 2 of the American Convention, the Court has indicated that this obliges States Parties to adopt, based on their constitutional procedures and the provisions of the Convention, the measures of a legislative or any other nature that may be required to make effective the rights and freedoms protected by the Convention.269 In other words, States not only have the positive obligation to adopt the necessary legislative measures to ensure the exercise of the rights established in this instrument, but they must also avoid promulgating those laws that prevent the free exercise of these rights, and avoid the elimination or amendment of laws that protect them. 270 In short, “the State has the obligation to adopt the necessary measures to guarantee the effective exercise of the rights and freedoms recognized in the Convention.”271 237. In this case, the Court notes that the representatives did not present any more specific allegations or arguments to substantiate a violation of the principle of legality in relation to restrictions of the rights to personal liberty, and to movement and residence contained in Articles 7 and 22 of the American Convention. Consequently, the Court will not rule on the alleged failure to comply with Articles 2 and 9 of the Convention, considering that the facts have been analyzed sufficiently, and the violations conceptualized in light of the rights to freedom of movement and residence, and to judicial guarantees and judicial protection, in keeping with Articles 22, 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument. VIII. REPARATIONS (Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention) 238. Based on the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention,272 the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has caused harm entails the obligation to make adequate reparation,273 and that this provision “reflects a customary norm that constitutes one of the basic principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility.”274 239. In its final arguments, the State indicated that “it has every intention […] of recognizing the jurisdiction of this […] Court, but as an impoverished developing State with limited 268 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 107, and Case of Mohamed v. Argentina, para. 130. 269 Cf. Case of Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 29, 1997. Series C No. 30, para. 51, and Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia, para. 245 270 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, para. 207, and Case of Artavia Murillo et al. (In vitro fertilization) v. Costa Rica, para. 335. 271 Case of the Las Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211, para. 240, and Case of Artavia Murillo et al. (In vitro fertilization) v. Costa Rica, para. 335. 272 Article 63(1) of the American Convention 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.” 273 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, para. 25, and Case of Luna López v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 10, 2013. Series C No. 269, para. 213. 274 213. Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, Reparations and costs, para. 25, and Case of Luna López v. Honduras, para. 73