88 before notary public by the next of kin. In this regard, they requested the Court to take into account all the measures of satisfaction and non-repetition that the victims’ next of kin had requested in their testimonies. Lastly, they stated that, in relation to the beneficiaries, in addition to the persons mentioned by the Commission in its application, “all the next of kin should also be compensated if the circumstances warrant it.” 137. The representatives also requested the Court to order the State to reimburse the expenses and costs in which the victims’ next of kin and their representatives incurred at the domestic level. In that regard, they indicated that both the Comité de Iglesias para Ayudas de Emergencias and Global Rights had incurred expenses for more than 16 years. The State’s arguments 138. The State indicated that it had made significant efforts to make reparation to the victims of grave human rights violations during the dictatorship or, when applicable, their next of kin, in particular within the framework of the friendly settlement procedure or, in general, through non-pecuniary reparation. It had also named the square on one side of the Government Palace the “Plaza de los Desaparecidos” and created the Center of Documentation and Files for the Defense of Human Rights, where the “Terror Files” are kept. Finally, it mentioned that, on October 6, 2003, Act 2225 was adopted, “creating the Truth and Justice Commission” (supra para. 41). The Court’s findings 139. In light of the State’s acknowledgement of international responsibility (supra para. 41 to 51), and in accordance with the findings on merits described in the preceding chapters, the Court declares that the State is responsible for the violation of Articles 4(1) (Right to Life), 5(1) and 5(2) (Right to Humane Treatment) and 7 (Right to Personal Liberty) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) thereof, to the detriment of Agustín Goiburú Giménez, Carlos José Mancuello Bareiro, and Rodolfo and Benjamín Ramírez Villalba (supra para. 94). In addition, the State violated the rights embodied in Articles 5(1) (Right to Humane Treatment), 8(1) (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25 (Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) thereof, to the detriment of the aforementioned and their next of kin (supra paras. 133). 140. It is a principle of international law that any violation of an international obligation that has produced damage entails the obligation to repair it adequately.88 The Court has based its decision in this regard on Article 63(1) of the American Convention, which 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. 88 Cf. Case of Montero-Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia), supra note 3, para. 115; Case of Ximenes Lopes, supra note 8, para. 208, and Case of Baldeón García, supra note 6, para. 174.