-125(b) The way in which the paramilitary group raided Pueblo Bello, the absolute absence of a response from the authorities in the days immediately following the raid, and the subsequent illegal occupation by the paramilitary groups of the jurisdiction and region of Urabá in the context of the armed conflict, obliged the alleged victims’ next of kin to leave the village, in many cases abandoning their belongings, their homes and their land. In other cases, the next of kin were obliged to sell or give away their property. Arguments of the State 224. The State did not refer to the alleged violation of Article 22 of the American Convention. Findings of the Court 225. The alleged violation of Article 22 of the Convention to the detriment of the next of kin of the persons disappeared and deprived of life, owing to their forced internal displacement, was alleged for the first time by the representatives during the presentation of their final oral arguments at the public hearing. The Court observes that the proven facts have established that several of the next of kin of those persons suffered different forms of displacement related to the facts of the case (supra para. 95(161)). However, this information was not included among the facts presented by the Commission in the application. These displacements took place at different times, although all of them occurred before the case was filed before the Court; hence, they cannot be classified as new facts in the proceedings and it cannot be considered that the representatives did not know about them when submitting their requests and arguments. Furthermore, although the alleged victims, their next of kin or representatives are able to submit their own requests, arguments and evidence in the proceedings before this Court (supra para. 54 to 56), respecting the adversarial principle, and the procedural principles of defense and due process, this possibility does not exempt them from presenting them at the first procedural opportunity granted to them for this purpose; that is, in their requests and arguments brief. Consequently, since the facts on which the allegation of the representatives is based are not contained in the application, and they did not submit this alleged violation of Article 22 of the Convention at the opportune procedural moment, the Court will not examine these allegations or rule on them. XII REPARATIONS (Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention) 226. In accordance with the finding on merits set forth in the preceding chapters, and based on the facts of the case, the Court has declared the violation of Articles 4(1), 5(1), 5(2), 7(1) and 7(2), 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention, all in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. The Court has indicated repeatedly that any violation of an international obligation that has produced damage entails the obligation to repair it adequately.247 To this end, Article 63(1) of the American Convention establishes that: 247 Cf. Case of Blanco Romero et al., supra note 10, para. 67; Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas, supra note 10, para. 246, and Case of Gómez Palomino, supra note 10, para. 112.