IX REPARATIONS215 189. Based on the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention, the Court has maintained that every violation of an international obligation that 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. 216 190. Reparation of the harm caused by the violation of an international obligation requires, whenever possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists in the restoration of the previous condition. If this is not feasible, as happens in most cases of human rights violations, this Court will determine measures to guarantee the violated rights and repair the consequences resulting from the violations.217 Therefore, the Court has considered the need to grant different measures of reparation in order to provide comprehensive redress so that, in addition to pecuniary compensation, measures of restitution, rehabilitation and satisfaction as well as guarantees of non-repetition have special relevance for the harm caused. 218 In addition, the Court considers that the reparations must include an analysis that considers not only the right of victims to obtain redress, but also one that incorporates a gender perspective and a child-oriented approach, both in its formulation and in its implementation.219 191. 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 the measures requested to redress the respective harm. Therefore, the Court must examine the concurrence of these elements to rule appropriately and in keeping with law.220 192. Bearing in mind the violations of the American Convention established in the previous chapters, in light of the criteria established in the Court’s case law in relation to the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparation,221 the Court will examine the claims presented by the Commission and the representatives, as well as the State’s arguments on the matter, in order to establish measures to redress the harm caused. A) Injured party 193. This Court considers the injured party, in the terms of Article 63(1) of the American Convention, to be those who have been declared victims of the violation of a right in this judgment. Therefore, the Court considers Pedro Julio Movilla Galarcio and the following members of his family to be the injured party: Candelaria Nuris Vergara Carriazo (wife), Carlos Julio Movilla Vergara (son), José Antonio Movilla Vergara (son), Jenny del Carmen Movilla Vergara (daughter), Leonor María Movilla de Sierra (sister), María de Jesús Movilla Barrera (sister), Florencia Movilla Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention. Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25, and Case of Pavez Pavez v. Chile, supra, para. 161. 217 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, supra, paras. 25 and 2, and Case of Cuya Lavy et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 28, 2021. Series C No. 438, para. 186. 218 Cf. Case of Las Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, supra, para. 226, and Case of Noguera et al. v. Paraguay, supra, para. 88. 219 Cf. Case of I.V. v. Bolivia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 30, 2016. Series C No. 329, para. 326, and Case of Guzmán Albarracín et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 24, 2020. Series C No. 405, para. 215. 220 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada v. Bolivia, supra, para. 110, and Case of Azul Rojas Marín et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 12, 2020. Series C No. 402, para 224. 221 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, supra, paras. 25 to 27, and Case of Azul Rojas Marín et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 225. 215 216 51