87 the victims, and where possible, the location of their remains,” 304 encompassed in the right to access to justice and the obligation to investigate—forms of reparation to know the truth in the specific case. 305 244. The Inter-American Court concludes that the State violated the rights to fair trial [judicial guarantees] and judicial protection provided for in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, and of the mentioned norms of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, for failing to effectively investigate the disappearance María Claudia García Iruretagoyena, and the abduction, suppression of identity, and delivery of María Macarena Gelman to a third party, to the detriment of Juan and Maria Macarena Gelman. 246. Due to the interpretation and application that has been given to the Expiry Law, which lacks legal effect in regard to human rights violations in the terms indicated above (supra para. 232), the State has not fulfilled its obligation to adapt its domestic legislation to the Convention, contained in Article 2 thereof, in relation to Articles 8(1), 25, and 1(1) thereof and Articles I(b), III, IV, and V of the InterAmerican Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. VII REPARATIONS (Application of Article 63 (1) of the American Convention) 247. On the basis of Article 63 (1) of the Convention, the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has produced damage entails the obligation to repair this adequately, 306 and that this provision “embodies a customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility.” 307 248. This Tribunal has established that the reparations should have a link with the facts of the case, the declared violations, the accredited damage, as well as the requested mean to repair the respective damages. Therefore, the Court should                                                          304 Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, supra note 20, para. 181; Case of Anzualdo Castro, supra note 75, para. 118, and Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia), supra note 16, para. 201. 305 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, supra note 20, para. 181; Case of Anzualdo Castro, supra note 75, para. 118, and Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia), supra note 16, para. 201. 306 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25; Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia), supra note 16, para. 245, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores, supra note 16, para. 209. 307 Cf. Case of Castillo Páez V. Perú. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 43, para. 50; Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia), supra note 16, para. 245, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores, supra note 16, para. 209.