amparo) against the decision of the university’s Professors’ Association. Said remedy was addressed on time and by law and Mr. Álvarez was able to participate in the professional association’s elections. The Court considers that by that time the sentence imposed for his criminal conviction on February 28, 2005, had already concluded, and therefore the penalty of political disqualification was no longer applicable. Moreover, the ruling by the Constitutional Chamber that revoked the amparo granted by the Electoral Chamber does not contain considerations concerning Mr. Álvarez’s eligibility, so that it had no effect on his substantive right. 191. Having regard to the previous considerations, the Court considers that in this case there was no violation of the right to judicial protection, pursuant to Article 25(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights. IX REPARATIONS (Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention) 192. 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 make adequate reparation and that this provision reflects a customary norm182 that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary law on State responsibility.183 193. Reparation of the harm caused by the violation of an international obligation requires, whenever possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists of the reestablishment of the previous situation.184 If this is not feasible, as in most cases of human rights violations, the Court will determine measures to guarantee the rights that have been violated and to redress the consequences of the violations.185 The Court has considered the need to grant different measures of reparation to fully redress the damages. Therefore, in addition to pecuniary compensation, the measures of restitution, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition are of special importance.186 194. This Court has established that reparations must have a causal nexus with the facts of the case, the violations declared, the damages proven, and the measures requested to repair the resulting harm. Therefore, the Court will observe such coincidence in order to rule appropriately and according to law.187 195. Taking into account the violations declared in the preceding chapter, this Court will now examine the claims presented by the Commission and the representatives, together with the arguments of the State, in light of the criteria established in the Court’s case law in relation to the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparation, in order to establish measures Cf. Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, adopted by the United Nations International Law Commission during its 53rd Session (A/56/10) and annexed by the United Nations General Assembly in Resolution N° 56/83, of December 12, 2001. 183 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989, Series C, No. 7, para. 25; and Case of the Dismissed Workers of PetroPeru et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2017, Series C, No. 344, para. 194. 184 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, para. 26; and Case of Muelle Flores v. Peru, para. 221. 185 Cf. Case of Fontevecchia and D’Amico v. Argentina, para. 98; and Case of the Dismissed Workers of PetroPeru et al. v. Peru, para. 195. 186 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of December 3, 2001, Series C, No. 88, paras. 79 to 81; and Case of Muelle Flores v. Peru, para. 221. 187 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 Lagos del Campo v. Peru, para. 193. 182 38