anguish that, as was shown, will continue over time for as long as the uncertainty as to the whereabouts of their biological parents persists. 254. Based on these considerations, the Court concludes that the Argentine State is responsible for the violation of the right to personal integrity, recognized in Article 5(1) of the American Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1), to the detriment of Anatole Alejandro Larrabeiti Yáñez and Claudia Victoria Larrabeiti Yáñez, for the suffering and anguish caused by the forced disappearance of their biological parents. VIII REPARATIONS 255. Based on Article 63(1) of the American Convention, the Court has held that every violation of an international obligation which results in harm creates a duty to make adequate reparation and that this provision reflects a customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility. 281 256. Reparation of harm brought about by the violation of an international obligation consists in full restitution (restitutio in integrum), as far as possible, which includes the restoration of the prior situation. If this is not feasible, the Court will determine measures to guarantee the rights that have been violated and redress the consequences of those violations.282 Accordingly, the Court has considered it necessary to grant different measures of reparation in order to redress the harm comprehensively; thus, in addition to pecuniary compensation, measures of restitution, rehabilitation and satisfaction, and guarantees of non-repetition have special relevance for the harm caused.283 The Court has established that reparations must have a causal nexus with the facts of the case, the violations that have been declared, the harm proved, and also the measures requested to redress the respective damage.284 257. Consequently, based on the violations declared in this Judgment, the Court will proceed to analyze the claims presented by the Commission and the representative, as well as the arguments of the State. A. Injured party 258. Under the terms of Article 63(1) of the American Convention, this Court considers as injured party anyone who has been declared a victim of the violation of any right recognized in this Judgment. Therefore, the Court considers Victoria Lucía Grisonas Andrijauskaite, Mario Roger Julien Cáceres, Anatole Alejandro Larrabeiti Yáñez, and Claudia Victoria Larrabeiti Yáñez to be the injured parties. Additionally, the Court notes that the evidence provided indicates that on October 20, 2017, a court ruling was issued finding that, “upon [the] death of J[ulien] C[áceres] M[ario] R [oger] and G[risonas] V[ictoria] L[ucía],” “they are succeeded as heirs to their entire estate by continuity of a nuclear family, of being uprooted [and] of a separation.” She indicated that during her childhood, she suffered “from deep sadness, from fear, from a sense of loss [and] depression.” She indicated that, at the age of nine, when they told her what had happened to her biological parents, she had a "feeling of helplessness, of a helplessness where adults did something very horrible and very ugly, which has no name." Cf. Statements of Anatole Alejandro Larrabeiti Yáñez and Claudia Victoria Larrabeiti Yáñez rendered at a public hearing before this Court. 281 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations, and Costs, supra, par. 25, and Case of Garzón Guzmán et al. v. Ecuador, supra, par. 95. 282 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations, and Costs, supra, par. 26, and Case of Garzón Guzmán et al. v. Ecuador, supra, par. 96. 283 Cf. Case of the “Las Dos Erres” Massacre v. Guatemala, supra, par. 226, and Case of Bedoya Lima et al. v. Colombia, supra, par. 264. 284 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia, supra, par. 110, and Case of Bedoya Lima et al. v. Colombia, supra, par. 265. 66