178. 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 caused harm entails the obligation to redress this adequately and that this provision reflects a customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility.182 179. The reparation of the harm caused by the violation of an international obligation requires, whenever possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists in the reestablishment of the previous situation. If this is not feasible, the Court will determine measures to ensure the rights that have been violated and to redress the consequences of the violations.183 Therefore, the Court has considered the need to grant diverse measures of reparation in order to redress the harm fully; thus, in addition to pecuniary compensation, measures of restitution, rehabilitation and satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition have special relevance for the harm caused.184 In addition, 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. 185 180. Consequently, based on the violations of the American Convention declared in the preceding chapter, the Court will proceed to examine the claims presented by the Commission and the representatives, together with the arguments of the State. A. Injured party 181. Pursuant to Article 63(1) of the Convention, the Court considers that anyone who has been declared a victim of the violation of any right recognized in that international instrument is the injured party. Therefore, the Court considers that Bonifacio Ríos Ávalos and Carlos Fernández Gadea are the injured party. 182. The Court recalls that Mr. Fernández Gadea died on June 20, 2010 (supra para. 25). In this regard, the representatives provided a copy of the judicial decision declaring that “his surviving spouse,” María Concepción Villalba Quevedo, and his sons, Carlos Aníbal, José Luis, Julio Cesar and Jesús María, with the last name Fernández Villalba, and his daughter Catalina Fernández Ocampos, were the said victim’s “heirs.”186 Consequently, the Court will take this information into account when making the pertinent decisions with regard to the payment of the respective compensations, without this supposing the inclusion of anyone other than those indicated in the preceding paragraph as an injured party (supra para. 16). B. Measures of restitution 183. The Commission asked that the State “[r]einstate Bonifacio Ríos Ávalos, should he so wish, in a position similar to the one he held in the Judiciary, with the same remuneration, social benefits, and equivalent rank to which he would have been entitled if he had not been Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25, and Case of Grijalva Bueno v. Ecuador, supra, para. 163. 183 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, supra, para. 65, and Case of Grijalva Bueno v. Ecuador, supra, para. 164. 184 Cf. Case of the Las Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211, para. 226, and Case of Grijalva Bueno v. Ecuador, supra, para. 164. 185 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 Grijalva Bueno v. Ecuador, supra, para. 163. 186 Cf. Decision declaring Carlos Fernández Gadea’s heirs of September 28, 2010 (evidence file, volume IV, annex II.D to the pleadings and motions brief, folios 6287 and 6288). 182 45