that the reparations must have a causal link with the facts of the case, the violations declared, the proven harm, as well as the measures requested to redress the resulting harm.125 The Court, therefore, must observe this concurrence in order to rule appropriately and in keeping with the law. 99. In view of the considerations on the merits and the violations declared in this judgment, the Court will now analyze the claims presented by the Commission and by the representative, as well as the arguments of the State, in light of the criteria established in its case law on the nature and scope of the obligation to repair in order to establish measures to redress the harm caused to the victim.126 A. Injured party 100. Pursuant to Article 63(1) of the Convention, the Court considers an injured party to be anyone who has been declared a victim of a violation of a right recognized in the Convention. Therefore, the Court considers Cristina Brítez Arce and her children to be “injured parties.” B. Measures of Rehabilitation 101. The Commission requested that the Court order the measures of the mental care that Ezequiel Martín Avaro and Vanina Verónica Avaro require, with their consent and that of the State. 102. The representative did not make any specific observation on this matter. 103. The State informed that it had reiterated during the friendly settlement negotiations its proposal that the rehabilitative care “could be provided by the public services” or by the determination of a sum of money for that purpose. 104. The Court, in view of the Commission’s request, the statements made during the virtual public proceedings and the information that Ezequiel Martín Avaro does not live in Argentina, will set, in equity, a sum for this concept. It, therefore, orders, as it has done in other cases,127 that the State pay Ezequiel Martín and Vanina Verónica Avaro, once, the sum, in equity, of USD 5,000.00 (five thousand United States dollars) to each one for psychological and/or psychiatric care. The State shall have a period of one year, as of the notification of this judgment, to make this payment. C. Measures of Satisfaction 105. The Commission did not refer to this matter. 106. The representative requested, in his final written arguments, that the judgment be made public. 107. The State did not refer to this matter. 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 Leguizamón Zaván et al. v. Paraguay, supra, para. 91. 125 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs, supra, paras. 25 and 26 and Case of Leguizamón Zaván et al. v. Paraguay, supra, para. 92. 126 Cf. Case of Guachalá Chimbo et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 26, 2021. Series C No. 423, para. 233 and Case of Bedoya Lima et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 26, 2021. Series C No. 431, para. 183. 127 29