126. Pursuant to the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention, the Court has stated that all violations of international obligations that result in harm, entail the duty to provide adequate reparations, 98 and that this provision codifies a rule of common law that is one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility. 99 127. In consideration of the violations of the American Convention declared in chapter VI, the Court will proceed to examine the requests of both the Commission and the representatives, as well as the arguments of the State on the matter, in light of the standards established in the jurisprudence of the Court in regard to the nature and scope of the obligation to remedy, 100 with the purpose of issuing measures capable of repairing the damage caused to the victim. 128. The reparation of the damage caused by the breach of an international obligation requires, whenever possible, full restitution (restituto in integrum), which consists in the reestablishment of the previous situation. If this is not feasible, as in most cases, including this one, the international tribunal will determine measures to guarantee the violated rights, repair the consequences of the violations, and 101 establish a compensation to offset the damage incurred. 129. This Court has established that the reparations must have a causal connection with the facts of the case, the violations established, the damages proven, as well as with the measures requested to repair the respective damage. Therefore, the Court must observe that concurrence in order to render a decision that is proper and in 102 accordance with the law. A. Injured Party 130. The Tribunal reiterates that the injured party is considered to be, in the terms of Article 63(1) of the Convention, those that have been declared as victims of the 103 Therefore, this Court considers Mr. violation of any of the rights enshrined thereof. José Alfredo Mejía Idrovo to be the “injured party.” 98 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Reparations and Costs, supra note 77, para. 25; Case of Salvador Chiriboga V. Ecuador. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 3, 2011. Series C No. 222, para. 32, and Case of Vera Vera et al. V. Ecuador, supra note 12, para. 106. 99 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán-Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 26, 2001. Series C No. 77, para. 62; Case of Salvador Chiriboga V. Ecuador. Reparations and Costs, supra note 98, para. 32, and Case of Vera Vera et al. V. Ecuador, supra note 12, para. 106. 100 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Reparations and Costs, supra note 77, paras. 25 to 27; Case of Abrill Alosilla et al. V. Perú, supra note 19, para. 88, and Case of Vera Vera et al. V. Ecuador, supra note 12, para. 108. 101 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Tribunal V. Perú. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, para. 119; Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) V. México, supra note 77, para. 450, and Case of Barreto Leiva V. Venezuela, supra note 77, para. 128. 102 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada et al. V. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para 110; Case of Abrill Alosilla et al. V. Perú, supra note 19, para. 87, and Case of Vera Vera et al. V. Ecuador, supra note 12, para. 107. 103 Cf. Case of Bayarri V. Argentina. Preliminar Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 30, 2008. Series C No. 187, para. 126; Case of Abrill Alosilla et al. V. Perú, supra note 19, para. 89, and Case of Vera Vera et al. V. Ecuador, supra note 12, para. 109. 39