55. In this regard, the Court reiterates its case law in the sense that salary remuneration is part of an individual’s personal wealth. In this regard, for example, in the case of Abrill Alosilla et al. v. Peru, it declared a violation of the right to property because the lack of judicial protection for the victims impacted their right to enjoy full ownership of their compensation. 54 Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Court finds that the violation of Mr. Boleso's right to property was redressed before domestic courts through the payment of the amount owed, duly updated and with interest (supra para. 41). 56. Consequently, the Court will not declare a violation of Article 21 of the American Convention to the detriment of Mr. Héctor Hugo Boleso, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the Convention. VIII REPARATIONS 57. Pursuant to the provisions of 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. 55 This Court has also established that the reparations must have a causal nexus with the facts of the case, the violations that have been declared, the harm proved, and the measures requested to redress the respective harm. 56 Therefore, the Court must observe such coincidence in order to adjudge and declare according to law. 58. Consequently, based on its considerations on the merits and the violations of the Convention declared in this judgment, the Court will proceed to examine the claims of the Commission and the representatives, together with the corresponding observations of the State, in light of the criteria established in its case law on the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparation, in order to establish measures to redress the harm caused to the victims. 57 A. Injured party 59. Pursuant to Article 63(1) of the Convention, the Court considers that anyone who has been declared a victim of the violation of any right recognized in the judgment is an injured party. Therefore, this Court considers Héctor Hugo Boleso the “injured party” and, as a victim of the violations declared in Chapter VII of this Judgment, he will be considered the beneficiary of the reparations ordered by the Court. B. Measures of satisfaction 60. The Commission did not address this matter. 54 Cf. Case of Abrill Alosilla et al. v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of March 4, 2011. Series C No. 223, para. 83. 55 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, paras. 24 and 25, and Case of Olivera Fuentes v. Peru, supra, para. 130. 56 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 Olivera Fuentes v. Peru, supra, para. 132. 57 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs, supra, paras. 25 and 26, and Case of Olivera Fuentes v. Peru, supra, para. 133. 15