79 consultation with the communities, so as to substantially improve the existing legal and institutional framework; and e) for the abovementioned reasons, the application for reparations filed by the Commission must be rejected. 161. Regarding costs, in its brief on final pleadings the State indicated that it must not be sentenced to such payment for the following reasons, including that: a) Nicaragua showed good faith in its allegations; b) the State proved that the evidence submitted by the Commission regarding ancestral possession of the Community was insufficient, and that its claim is excessive and over-dimensioned to the detriment of third parties; c) the operating costs of the Commission and of the Court are covered by the OAS budget; d) “access to the Commission [and] the Court is subject to no schedule of fees or rates”; e) article 45 of the Rules of Procedure states that the party proposing an item of evidence will cover the costs incurred for it; and f) Nicaragua is one of the poorest States of the hemisphere and must commit its limited resources, among other uses, to funding the costly process of titling and demarcating the lands of indigenous communities. * * * Considerations of the Court 162. 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. 163. In the instant case the Court established that Nicaragua breached articles 25 and 21 of the Convention in relation to articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention. In this regard, the Court has reiterated in its constant jurisprudence that it is a principle of international law that any violation of an international obligation which has caused damage carries with it the obligation to provide adequate reparation for it.63 63 cfr. Cesti Hurtado case. Reparations, supra note 13, para. 32; “Street Children” case (Villagrán Morales et al. vs. Guatemala). Reparations, supra note 11 para. 59; “White van” case (Paniagua Morales et al. vs. Guatemala). Reparations, supra note 13, para. 75; Ivcher Bronstein case, supra note 9, para.177; Baena Ricardo et al. case, supra note 9, para.201; Case of the Constitutional Court, supra note 10, para.118; Suárez Rosero case. Reparations (art. 63.1 American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of January 20 1999. C Series No. 44, para.40; Loayza Tamayo Case. Reparations (Art. 63.1 American Convention on Human Rights), Judgment of November 27, 1998. C Series No. 42, para.84; Caballero Delgado and Santana case. Reparations (art. 63.1 American Convention on Human Rights).