C. General conclusion 217. Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that the State is responsible for the violation of Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio’ right to not be subjected to arbitrary detention contained in Articles 7(1) and 7(3) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, in both of the resolutions analyzed (ordinary and military jurisdictions); the right to decide on his request for unconditional release, by failing to provide sufficient grounds that it sought a legitimate purpose compatible with the Convention, and by failing to perform a periodic review of the need to maintain the precautionary measure. Furthermore, the Court considers that the period during which Mr. Rosadio Villavicencio was held in preventive detention, without his legal situation being resolved, violated the reasonableness and proportionality of the term required by Article 7(5) of the Convention, as well as the right to presumption of innocence set forth in Article 8(2) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. Lastly, the Court did not find the State responsible for the violation of Article 7(6) of the Convention, in relation to Article 25 thereof. IX. REPARATIONS (Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention) 218. Pursuant to the provisions of Article 63(1) of the Convention,190 the Court has held that every violation of an international obligation which results in harm creates a duty to make adequate reparation, and that this provision reflects a customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility.191 This Court has also established that reparations must have a causal nexus with the facts of the case, the alleged violations, the proven damages, as well as the measures requested to repair the resulting damages. Therefore, the Court must observe such coincidence in order to adjudge and declare according to law.192 219. Accordingly, in conformity with the violations of the Convention declared in this judgment, the Court will proceed to examine the petitions made by the Commission and the parties in light of the tenets established in its jurisprudence in connection with the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparations 193 and thus adopt the measures required to redress the damage. In this regard, even though the judgment constitutes in and of itself a way of reparation, 194 considering the damages caused to the victims, the Court will establish other measures. A. Injured party 220. The Court, under the terms of Article 63(1) of the Convention, holds as an injured party anyone who has been declared the victim of violation of a right recognized therein. Therefore, the Court considers that Jorge Enrique Rosadio Villavicencio is the injured party. 190 Article 63(1) of the Convention provides 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.” 191 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25, and Case of Rodríguez Revolorio et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 14, 2019. Series C No. 387, para. 137. 192 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 110, and Case of Rodríguez Revolorio et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 139. 193 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs, paras. 25 to 27, and Case of Rodríguez Revolorio et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 140. 194 Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al. v. Peru. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 19, 1996. Series C No. 29, para. 56, and Case of Valenzuela Ávila v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 11, 2019. Series C No. 386, para. 228. 49