caused and, therefore, in addition to pecuniary compensation, the measures of restitution and satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition are especially relevant.339 281. 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 damage. Consequently, the Court must observe this concurrence in order to rule appropriately and according to law.340 282. At the end of the proceedings before the Court, the State reiterated its willingness, expressed during the visit to the Sarayaku territory, to reach an agreement with the People regarding the reparations in this case (supra paras. 23 and 25). During this visit, the Tayak Apu, or President of the Sarayaku, José Gualinga, indicated that it was the People’s will that the Court deliver judgment. At the time of drafting the judgment, the Court has not been informed of any specific agreements on reparations, which, evidently, does not preclude these from being reached at the domestic level at any time after delivery of the Judgment. 283. Consequently, and without detriment to any form of reparation subsequently agreed between the State and the Sarayaku People, based on the violations of the American Convention declared in this Judgment, the Court will proceed to order measures aimed at repairing the damage caused to the Sarayaku. To this end, the Court will take into account the claims of the Commission and the representatives, together with the State’s arguments, in light of the criteria established in the Court’s case law regarding the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparation.341 A. Injured Party 284. Under Article 63(1) of the American Convention, the Court considers the injured party to be the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku, who suffered the violations declared in the chapter on Merits of this Judgment (supra paras. 231, 232, 249, 271 and 278), and are therefore considered beneficiaries of the reparations that it orders. B. Measures of restitution and satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition 285. The Court will determine the measures aimed at repairing the non-pecuniary damages that are not of a pecuniary nature, as well as measures of public scope and impact.342 International case law and, in particular, the case law of the Court, has repeatedly held that the judgment per se is a form of reparation.343 However, considering the circumstances of the case sub judice, and based on the damage caused to the Sarayaku People and the pecuniary and non-pecuniary consequences of the violations of the American Convention declared to their detriment, the Court finds it appropriate to establish measures of restitution and satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition. 286. The Commission asked the Court to order the State to: i. “Adopt the measures necessary to ensure and protect the right to property of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku and its members with respect to their ancestral territory, taking particular care to ensure the special relationship they have to their land”; 339 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 26, and Case of Pacheco Teruel et al. v. Honduras, para. 91. 340 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 Forneron and daughter v. Argentina, para. 146. 341 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Reparations and costs, paras. 25 to 27 and Case of Forneron and daughter v. Argentina, para. 147. 342 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs, Judgment of May 26, 2011. Series C No. 77, para. 84 and Case of Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile, para 251. 343 Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al. v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of September 19, 1996. Series C No. 29, para. 56 and Case of Forneron and daughter v. Argentina, para. 149. 78