70 inappropriate,265 and iii) to ensure that children are not interogated on several occasions to avoid, to the extent possible, the revictimization or traumatic effects of the child.266 202. As a consequence, considering that Mrs. Rosendo Cantu was a girl child at the time the facts occurred, that she did not count on special measures appropriate for her age, and the acknowledgment of responsibility of the State, the Court declares that the State violated her right to special protection given Mrs. Rosendo Cantú status as a girl child, enshrined in Article 19 of the American Convention, in relation with Article 1(1) thereof. XI REPARATIONS (Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention267) 203. Based on the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention, the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has produced harm entails the obligation to repair it adequately268 and that this provision “embodies a customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility.”269 204. This Court has established that reparations must be related to the facts of the case, the violations that have been declared, the damage proven, and the measures requested to repair the respective damage. Consequently, the Court must respect all these factors to ensure that its ruling is appropriate and in keeping with the law.270 205. The Court will proceed to examine the claims submitted by the Commission and the representatives, as well as the State’s arguments, so as to order measures designed to repair the damage caused to the victims. Regarding the State’s arguments, the Court observes that it presented specific arguments with regard to only some of the requested measures of reparation. Notwithstanding, Mexico requested in a general manner that the Court reject “any claim for reparation presented by the [Commission] or the petitioners.” In addition, it requested that the measures ordered “should be designed to repair the violation […] committed and not to make the victims more rich, […] nor to provide a double reparation.” Lastly, it requested that the Court consider the measures of public policy implemented by the State as guarantees of non-repetition. 206. The Court does not lose sight that Mrs. Rosendo Cantú is an indigenous woman, a girl child at the time the violations occurred, and whose situation of particular 265 Cf. Committee on the Rights of the Child. General Comment 12: The right of the child to be heard, supra note 263, para. 21 in fine, 34 and 64. 266 Cf. Committee on the Rights of the Child. General Comment 12: The right of the child to be heard, supra note 263, para. 24. 267 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 [the] 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.” 268 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25; Case of Chitay Nech et al., supra note 25, para. 227, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas, supra note 25, para. 211. 269 Cf. Case of Castillo Páez v. Perú. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 43, para. 43; Case of Chitay Nech et al., supra note 25, para. 227, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas, supra note 25, para. 211. 270 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 110; Case of Radilla Pacheco, supra note 36, para. 362, and Case of the Dos Erres Massacre, supra note 27, para. 227.