-28118. The Court has generally considered the following elements to determine the reasonableness of the term: a) complexity of the matter; b) procedural activity of the interested party; c) conduct of the judicial authorities, and d) affectation generated in the legal situation of the person involved in the process. In the instant case, the ruling of the Constitutional Division that reinstated Mr. Colindres Schonenberg after the first dismissal declared admissible “the civil action for compensation of damages against the State.162 As the Civil Chamber pointed out when deciding the appeal, the decision of the Constitutional Division gave him “a right […] to obtain compensation for the damage, and this is specified in the civil proceeding at hand.”163 Indeed, the controversy in the civil process was only for the value of the damages, so it was not a complex process. Additionally, the Court notes that the State has not shown that the delay is due to the procedural activity of the alleged victim. Consequently, the Court considers that it is not necessary to carry out a detailed analysis of the elements related to the reasonable time mentioned above, since it considers it evident that a term of fifteen years to resolve and execute a proceeding for damages constitutes a violation of reasonable time. 119. Consequently, the State violated the right to judicial guarantees established in Article 8(1), in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention, with respect to Mr. Eduardo Benjamín Colindres Schonenberg. VII REPARATIONS (Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention) 120. Based on Article 63(1) of the American Convention,164 the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has caused damage entails the duty to adequately remedy it, and that this provision includes a customary norm that constitutes one of the principles of contemporary International Law in relation to a State's responsibility.165 Likewise, this Court has established that the reparations must have a causal link with the facts of the case, the alleged violations, the proven damages, as well as the measures requested to repair the resulting damages.166 Therefore, the Court must observe such coincidence in order to adjudge and declare according to law.167 121. Consequently, and without prejudice to any form of reparation that is subsequently agreed upon between the State and the victim, and in accordance with the considerations set forth on the merits and the violations of the Convention declared in this judgment, the Court will proceed to examine the arguments of the parties and the Commission, in light of the criteria established Cf. Resolution of the Constitutional Division of November 4, 1997 (evidence file, folio 375). Cf. Judgment of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of June 13, 2001 (evidence file, folios 1669). See in the same vein, Judgment of the First Civil Chamber of the First Section of the Center of December 23, 1999 (evidence file, folio 1636). 164 Article 63(1) of the American Convention provides: “[i]f 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.” 165 Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 24 and 25, and Case of Órdenes Guerra et al. v. Chile. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2018. Series C No. 372, para. 103. 166 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 25, and Case of Órdenes Guerra et al. v. Chile. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2018. Series C No. 372, para. 104. 167 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 25, and Case of Órdenes Guerra et al. v. Chile. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2018. Series C No. 372, para. 104. 162 163