violated and to make reparation for the consequences of the violations.289 Consequently, the Court has considered the need to grant different types of reparatory measures in order to redress the harm integrally; thus, in addition to pecuniary compensation, measures of restitution and satisfaction, and guarantees of non-repetition have particular relevance to the harm caused.290 245. This Court has established that reparations must have a causal nexus with the case, the violations that have been declared, the harm proved, and also the measures requested to make reparation for the respective harm. Therefore, the Court must take these factors into account in order to rule appropriately and according to law.291 246. Based on the considerations on the merits and the violations of the American Convention that have been declared in the preceding chapter, the Court will now examine the arguments and recommendations presented by the Commission and the claims of the representatives, and also the arguments of the State, in light of the criteria established in the Court’s case law concerning the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparation,292 in order to establish measures designed to redress the harm caused to the victims. A. Injured party 247. The Court reiterates that it considers injured party, in the terms of Article 63(1) of the American Convention, to be anyone who has been declared a victim of the violation of a right recognized therein. Hence, this Court considers that Miguel Camba Campos, Freddy Oswaldo Mauricio Cevallos Bueno, Pablo Enrique Herrería Bonnet, Manuel Stalin Jaramillo Córdova, Jaime Manuel Nogales Izureta, Luis Vicente Rojas Bajaña, Mauro Leonidas Terán Cevallos and Simón Bolívar Zabala Guzmán are the “injured party” and, as such, they will be considered the beneficiaries of the reparations ordered by the Court. 248. The State asked that Mr. Jaramillo Córdova not be considered an injured party, “because he was an alternate judge; in other words, […] he served as a judge only when the titular judge was absent, and therefore the State would considering the position of [Mr.] Jaramillo Córdova, with regard to both pecuniary and non-pecuniary reparations, in a different way, regardless of whether the said alternate occupied the position of a judge.” 249. The Court observes that Mr. Jaramillo was in a similar situation to the other victims as regards the violations declared in this Judgment. Indeed, he was a victim of arbitrary removal and of impeachment proceedings for reasons that constituted an infringement of judicial independence (supra para. 222). Therefore, Mr. Jaramillo Córdova must be recognized as an injured party. Nevertheless, the State’s arguments will be taken into account when determining the scope of the pecuniary damage in this case (infra paras. 281 and 289 to 296). 289 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, para. 26, and Case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina, para. 307. 290 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, para. 25, and Case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina, para. 307. 291 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada v. Bolivia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 110, and Case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina, para. 306. 292 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, paras. 25 to 27, and Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador, para. 161. 74