197. Based on the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention, 330 the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has caused harm entails the obligation to provide adequate reparation, 331 and that this provision reflects a customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility. 332 198. The reparation of the harm caused by the violation of an international obligation requires, whenever possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists in the reinstatement of the previous situation. If this is not feasible, as in most cases of human rights violations, the Court will determine measures to ensure the rights that have been violated and to repair the consequences of the violations. 333 Therefore, the Court has considered the need to award different measures of reparation in order to redress the harm integrally, so that in addition to pecuniary compensation, measures of restitution and satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition have special relevance to the harm caused. 334 199. This Court has established that the reparations must have a causal nexus with the facts of the case, the violations declared, the harm proved, and the measures requested to repair the respective harm. Consequently, the Court must observe the co-existence of these elements in order to rule appropriately and in accordance with the law. 335 200. Based on the violations declared in the preceding chapters, the Court will proceed to examine the claims submitted by the Commission and the representatives, together with 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, in order to establish measures addressed at redressing the harm caused to the victims. 336 A. Injured party 201. The Court reiterates that, under Article 63(1) of the Convention, the injured party is considered to be whoever has been declared a victim of the violation of a right recognized in the Convention. 337 Therefore, the Court considers the “injured party” to be Carlos Mémoli and 330 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.” 331 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25, and Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador, supra, para. 161. 332 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and costs. Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, para. 40, and Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador, supra, para. 161. 333 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, supra, para. 26, and Case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of May 14, 2013. Series C No. 260, para. 378. 334 Cf. Case of the Las Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211, para. 226, and Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador, supra, para. 164. 335 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 Mendoza et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. 306. 336 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, supra, paras. 25 to 27, and Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador, supra, para. 162. 337 Cf. Case of the La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 233, and Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador, supra, para. 165. 74