46 160. As a result of all of the foregoing, this Court finds that the State is responsible for the violation of the right to a fair trial, and judicial protection, enshrined in Articles 8(1), and 25(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in conjunction with Article 1(1)1 of the Convention, and for the violation of the right to personal integrity enshrined in Article 5(1) of the American Convention, for failure to investigate the threats and harassment suffered by Mr. José Mauricio García Prieto Hirlemann and Gloria Giralt de García Prieto. IX ARTICLE 11(2) (RIGHT TO PRIVACY)104 IN RELATION WITH ARTICLE 1(1) (OBLIGATION TO RESPECT RIGHTS) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION 161. The common intervener requested that the Court declare that the State is responsible for the violation of Article 11(2) of the Convention, to the detriment of the next of kin of Ramón Mauricio García Prieto. The common intervener alleged that “for more than ten years the [members of the] García Prieto family have been the object of systematic surveillance and have been followed by unknown individuals, who on occasions have been identified as state agents.” This situation has “affected the development of their familial and social relationships, which form part of their private life”, and “has restricted their movements, which has forced them to modify their habits and daily activities.” Neither the Commission nor the State referred to the alleged violation of Article 11(2) of the Convention. 162. In reference to the alleged violation of this Article of the American Convention, the Court notes that in its Report on Merits, the Commission found that it had not identified separate issues to analyze with respect to the alleged violation of Article 11 of the Convention. In addition, in consideration of the allegations brought forth by the common intervener with respect to the violation of Article 11(2) (Right to Privacy) of the Convention, this Court finds that the facts claimed to sustain this alleged violation and their legal effects have been examined in the previously declared violation of Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment) of the American Convention. X REPARATIONS (APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 63(1) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION)105 104 105 Article 11(2) of the Convention establishes that: […] 2. No one may be the object of arbitrary or abusive interference with his private life, his family, his home, or his correspondence, or of unlawful attacks on his honor or reputation. […] Article 63(1) of the Convention establishes that: “If 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.”