provide the protection of the law against such attacks. In general terms, the right to honor is related to self-esteem and self-worth, while reputation refers to the opinion that others have of a person.” 416 The Court has declared this right violated in cases in which it has been proved that the State has submitted individuals or groups of individuals to odium, stigmatization, public scorn, persecution or discrimination by means of public declarations by public officials.417 287. In the instant case, the Court observes that neither the body of evidence nor the version put forward by the State show that public officials put out versions of the facts of the case in which they considered the population of Santo Domingo to be collaborators and members of the FARC guerrilla group. To the contrary, the versions given by several members of the Colombian Air Force and by the State (supra para. 195) indicate that it was the explosion of a red truck that caused the deaths, injuries, destruction and displacement of those who lived in Santo Domingo. The rules of discretion and experience do not allow the Court to infer that the State was promoting the hypothesis of collaboration with the guerrilla on the part of the population of Santo Domingo, when the State itself asserted openly that it was the guerrilla that had attacked the inhabitants of Santo Domingo using such cruel methods of combat. 288. As regards the versions that have been aired in the context of the domestic proceedings, in this case, the Court does not rule on the international responsibility of a State Party to the American Convention in light of the terms used by the accused in the exercise of their right to defense and of other judicial guarantees contained in Article 8 of the said instrument. 289. Based on all the foregoing, the Court finds that insufficient evidence was presented to analyze the facts in light of Article 11 of the American Convention. VIII REPARATIONS (Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention) 290. Based on the provisions of Article 63(1) of the Convention,418 the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has resulted in harm entails the obligation to repair this adequately,419 and that this provision “reflects a customary norm that constitutes one of the basic principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility.”420 291. This Court has established that the reparations must have a causal nexus with the facts of the case, the violations declared, the damage proved, and the measures requested to repair the respective damage. Consequently, the Court must observe the concurrence of these elements in order to rule duly and in keeping with the law.421 416 Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama, Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 27, 2009. Series C No. 193, para. 57. 417 Cf. Case of Ríos et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 194, para. 148; Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela, para. 160, and Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 8, 2004. See also, Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, paras. 358 and 359. 418 Article 63(1) of the American Convention stipulates: “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.” 419 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 Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, para. 302. 420 Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 43, para. 50, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, para. 302. 421 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 the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, para. 304. ‐ 83 ‐