VIII REPARATIONS 135. Based on the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention, the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has produced harm entails the obligation 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. 149 This Court has also established that reparations must have a causal nexus with the facts of the case, the violations declared, the damage proven, and the measures requested to redress the respective harm. Thus, the Court must analyze the concurrence of these factors in order to rule appropriately and according to the law. 150 136. Therefore, taking into account the considerations on the merits and the violations of the American Convention declared in this judgment, the Court will now examine the claims presented by the Commission and the representatives of the victims, together with the corresponding observations of the State, in light of the criteria established in its case law concerning the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparation, for the purpose of ordering measures to redress the harm caused. 151 A. Injured party 137. Pursuant to Article 63(1) of the Convention, this Court considers that anyone who has been declared a victim of the violation of any right recognized therein is an injured party. In this case, the Court considers as “injured party” the 65 persons listed in the Single Annex, which is an integral part of this judgment, who, as victims of the violations declared in Chapter VII, shall be the beneficiaries of the reparations ordered by the Court. B. Measures of restitution 138. The Commission requested, in general terms, full reparation for the violation of the rights declared in the Merits Report. 139. The State alleged that the Commission did not specify the type of reparations requested nor did it justify why these should be ordered. It argued that this lack of precision violated its right of defense, since it made it impossible for it to challenge them. Thus, it considered that the reparation measures requested by the Commission were inadmissible. 140. According to the jurisprudence developed by this Court, in the event of an arbitrary dismissal of a public employee or official, the appropriate action is his or her reinstatement. However, in the instant case, this restitution measure of difficult to implement, due to the time that has elapsed between the facts and this judgment. Indeed, several of the victims have passed away and many of them are already retired, so it is not feasible to reinstate them. Therefore, given the violations declared in this judgment, the Court considers that the State must compensate the victims; this will be taken into account when establishing compensatory damages (infra paras. 154 to 158). 149 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25, and Case of the Maya Kaqchikel Indigenous Peoples of Sumpango et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 173. 150 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada v. Bolivia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 110, and Case of the Maya Kaqchikel Indigenous Peoples of Sumpango et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 175. Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs, supra, paras. 25 and 26, and Case Maya Kaqchikel Indigenous Peoples of Sumpango et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 176 151 39