concerning the death certificate of Luis Ferreira da Cruz; however, they were advised that there was no record of his death so that it was probable that, if he had died, he had been given an indigent burial. In addition, in a statement made before the Federal Police on January 28, 2016, Maria do Socorro Canuto indicated that she had found out about the death of Luis Ferreira da Cruz through his mother, who had received the news from an unknown person. 432. That said, the Court observes that, with regard to the presumed death of Luis Ferreira da Cruz, the evidence provided by the Commission and the parties is contradictory and very inconclusive. In 2009, the version of the foster family of Luis Ferreira da Cruz established that he was disappeared since his flight from Hacienda Brasil Verde in 1988. However, in 2015, Maria do Socorro Canuto and María Gorete stated that Luis Ferreira da Cruz had died 10 years previously – in other words, in around 2005. In addition, in a statement made in 2016, Maria do Socorro indicated that it was an unknown person who had provided this information. None of the statements made by Maria do Socorro Canuto indicate the approximate date on which news of the death of Luis Ferreira da Cruz was received. Even if this information were true and Luis Ferreira da Cruz is deceased, since he died without identification papers, it is probable that he was given an indigent burial, and it is an undisputed fact that his name does not appear in the records of those who are deceased. 433. Based on the above, which relates to facts regarding which it does not have competence, the Court notes that the State re-opened the investigation into the alleged disappearance of Luis Ferreira da Cruz in 2007; nevertheless, it failed to determine his whereabouts. Subsequently, in 2015, the State discovered, through the statements of his next of kin, that Luis Ferreira da Cruz had died in around 2005. Accordingly, from the evidence provided by the Commission and the parties, at the time this judgment is handed down, the Inter-American Court is unable to conclude that Luis Ferreira da Cruz was a victim of disappearance. Consequently, the State cannot be attributed with responsibility for the failure to investigate and eventually punish those allegedly responsible. 434. On this basis, the Court concludes that the State is not responsible for the alleged violations of the rights to juridical personality, life, and personal integrity and liberty recognized in Articles 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to the rights of the child, established in Article 19 of this instrument, to the detriment of Iron Canuto da Silva and Luis Ferreira da Cruz, or for the violation of Articles 8 and 25 of this instrument to the detriment of their next of kin. IX REPARATIONS (APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 63(1) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION) 435. Based on the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention,518 the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has produced a harm entails the duty to make adequate reparation,519 and that this provision reflects a customary rule Article 63(1) of the American Convention establishes that: “[i]f 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.” 518 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25, and Case of Herrera Espinoza et al., para. 210. 519 106