VIII REPARATIONS 111. Based on Article 63(1) of the American Convention, the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has caused harm entails the 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.140 112. Reparation of the harm caused by the violation of an international obligation requires, insofar as possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists in the restoration of the previous situation. If this is not feasible, as in most cases of human rights violations, the Court will determine measures to guarantee the rights that have been violated and to redress the consequences of those violations.141 Therefore, the Court has found it necessary to grant different measures of reparation in order to redress the harm integrally so that, in addition to pecuniary compensation, measures of restitution, rehabilitation and satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition have special relevance for the harm caused.142 113. This Court has also established that the 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. Accordingly, the Court must analyze the concurrence of these factors in order to rule appropriately and in keeping with law.143 114. Taking into account the violations of the American Convention declared in the preceding chapter in light of the criteria established in the Court’s case law concerning the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparation, 144 the Court will examine the claims presented by the Commission and the representatives, together with the corresponding arguments of the State, in order to establish measures to redress the said violations. A. Injured party 115. 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 therein is an injured party. Therefore, the Court considers that Carlos Alberto Fernández Prieto and Carlos Alejandro Tumbeiro are the “injured party” and, as victims of the violations declared in Chapter VII, they will be considered beneficiaries of the reparations that the Court orders. The Court recalls that, as previously indicated (supra paras. 45 and 52), both Mr. Fernández Prieto and Mr. Tumbeiro died before the adoption of this judgment. B. Measures of satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 24, and Case of Valle Ambrosio et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. 55. 140 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, supra, para. 24, and Case of Valle Ambrosio et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. 56. 141 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 Valle Ambrosio et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. 56. 142 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 Valle Ambrosio et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. 57. 143 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, supra, paras. 25 to 27, and Case of Valle Ambrosio et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. 58. 144 36