surviving victims and the next of kin of the victims who were executed in this case, in their respective circumstances. IX REPARATIONS (Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention) 302. Based on the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention,486 the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has produced damage entails the obligation to provide adequate reparation487 and that this provision reflects a customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility.488 303. Taking into consideration the violations of the American Convention, the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, and the Inter-American Convention for the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women “Convention of Belém do Pará” declared in this Judgment, the Court will proceed to analyze the claims presented by the Commission and the representatives, as well as the arguments of the State, in light of the criteria established in the Court’s case law regarding the nature and scope of the obligation to repair,489 in order to establish measures designed to repair the damage caused to the victims. 304. This Court has established that the reparations must have a causal nexus to the facts of the case, the violations declared, the damage proved, and the measures requested to repair the respective damage. Therefore, the Court must observe the concurrence of these elements in order to rule appropriately and in accordance with the law.490 305. Before this, the Court finds it pertinent to reiterate that the denial of justice to the detriment of the victims of grave human rights violations, such as a massacre, results in a variety of impacts in both the individual and the collective spheres. 491 Thus, it is evident that the victims of prolonged impunity suffer different adverse effects owing to the search for justice, not only of a pecuniary nature, but also sufferings and damage of a psychological and physical nature, and to their life project, as well as other possible alterations in their social relationships and their families and community dynamics.492 This Court has indicated that this damage is increased by the absence of support from the State authorities in the effective search for and identification of the remains, and the impossibility of honoring their loved ones appropriately.493 Accordingly, the Court has considered the need to grant different measures of reparation, in order to redress the damage fully; thus, in addition to pecuniary compensation, measures of satisfaction, restitution and rehabilitation, and guarantees of non-repetition have special relevance owing to the severity of the effects and the collective nature of the damage 486 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.” 487 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25, and Case of Vélez Restrepo and family members v. Colombia, para. 253. 488 Cf. Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 43, para. 50, and Case of Vélez Restrepo and family members v. Colombia, para. 253. 489 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, paras. 25 to 27, and Case of Vélez Restrepo and family members v. Colombia, para. 257. 490 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 Vélez Restrepo and family members v. Colombia, para. 255. 491 Cf. Case of the Las Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, para. 226. 492 Cf. Case of the Las Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, para. 226. 493 Cf. Case of the Las Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, para. 226. 100