representatives did not allege this violation in their pleadings and motions brief, but rather they alleged it during the public hearing and in their final written arguments. 210. Since the representatives’ presentation of the specific arguments on Article 22 of the American Convention was time-barred, the Court finds that it is not required to make a ruling on the State’s alleged international responsibility based on the presumed violation of this article. IX REPARATIONS (Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention) 211. Based on the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention, the Court has stated that any violation of an international obligation that has caused harm entails the duty to repair it satisfactorily and that this provisions reflects a norm of customary law that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary law on State responsibility (supra footnote 176). 221 In this case, the Court finds it necessary to award different measures of reparation in order to guarantee the right that has been violation and redress the harm integrally. 212. It should be noted that this Court has established that reparations should have a causal nexus to the facts of the case, the violations that have been declared, the damage proved and the measures requested to redress the respective harm. Therefore, the Court must observe the co-existence of these factors in order to rule properly and pursuant to the law. 222 213. The Court appreciates the effort made by Chile to implement a program of reparations (supra para. 189). Furthermore, the Court has noted that Mr. García Lucero has received certain measures of reparation under this system (supra para. 189). These measures were granted as a form of reparation, considering that Mr. García Lucero was “a person dismissed for political reasons,” and because the State recognized, in the report of the Valech Commission, the torture he suffered from 1973 to 1975. These facts were considered as “background information” in this Judgment and the Court did not examine them, because they fell outside its temporal competence. Thus, the violations declared in this Judgment have a factual basis in events that occurred after this Court’s contentious jurisdiction had been accepted in relation to access to justice (supra para. 138). Consequently, the Court will not take into account the sums of money that Mr. García Lucero has received to date, or that have been established in his favor, in order to determine the reparations that correspond to the violations of rights established in this Judgment. 214. Based on the preceding considerations on the merits, and the violations of the American Convention declared in Chapter VII, the Court will proceed to analyze the claims submitted by the Commission and the representatives, as well as the arguments of the State, in light of the criteria established in its case law concerning the nature and scope of 221 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, supra, para. 25, and Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador, supra, para. 161. 222 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia, supra, para. 110, and Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador, supra, para. 163. 69