292. Reparation of the harm caused by the violation of an international obligation requires, whenever possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists in re-establishment 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 violated rights and to repair the consequences of the violations.422 Thus, the Court has considered the need to grant different measures of reparation in order to redress the damage fully, so that, in addition to pecuniary compensation, measures of restitution and satisfaction, and guarantees of non-repetition have special relevance for the harm caused.423 293. Consequently, and without prejudice to any type of reparation that is subsequently agreed between the State and the victims of the Santo Domingo massacre based on the violations of the American Convention declared in this Judgment, the Court will proceed to order measures designed to repair the harm caused. To this end, it will take into account the claims of the Commission and the representatives, and also the arguments of the State, 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.424 A. Injured party 294. The Court considers as “injured party,” in keeping with Article 63(1) of the American Convention, the persons indicated in paragraphs 247, 268 and 282 and in annexes I, II and III of this Judgment, as victims of the violations declared herein, so that they will be considered beneficiaries of the reparations ordered by the Court.425 Similarly, the Court has stated that the presumed victims must be indicated in the merits report of the Inter-American Commission,426 and observes that 24 individuals named by the representatives as next of kin of the victims, are not included in the merits report issued by the Commission in this case. Nevertheless, of these 24 individuals, six family members of two of the deceased victims received reparation under the contentious-administrative jurisdiction;427 thus it can be understood that the State acknowledged them as victims. Consequently, the Court finds that it is not appropriate to consider as victims or as injured party 18 of the persons presented as next of kin of victims by the representatives,428 without prejudice to the reparations that may correspond to them at the domestic level. 422 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, para. 26, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, para. 248. 423 Cf. Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 294, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, para. 305. See also, Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, para. 26, 424 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, paras. 25 to 27 and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, para. 303. 425 The Court places on record that 23 of the 27 injured persons were recognized as such by the domestic courts, and four in the military criminal investigation (not by the judges), based on information obtained from a town meeting. In addition, two people mentioned in the decision of the Military Criminal Investigation Unit, specifically Ludo Vanegas and Alcides Bonilla, are the same age, have no known next of kin, and also have a very similar name to two of the victims identified in the other proceedings, namely: Ludwing Vanegas and Milciades Bonilla, so that they could be the same people. 426 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia, para. 98, and Case of Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay. Merits reparations and costs. Judgment of October 13, 2011. Series C No. 234, para. 42. See also, Case of Uzcátegui et al. v. Venezuela, para. 243. 427 Namely, Oscar Andrey Galvis Mojica (son of Teresa Mojica Hernández and Mario Galvis Gelves), Albeiro Galvis Mojica (son of Teresa Mojica Hernández and Mario Galvis Gelves), Norberto Arciniegas Calvo (brother of Arnulfo Arciniegas), Argemiro Arciniegas Calvo (brother of Arnulfo Arciniegas), Orlando Arciniegas Calvo (brother of Arnulfo Arciniegas) and Erlinda Arciniegas Calvo (sister of Arnulfo Arciniegas). 428 Luis Felipe Durán Mora, Luz Dary Tellez Durán, Yamile Tellez Durán, Wilmer Tellez Durán, Emilse Hernández Durán, Milena Durán, Yeimi Sulai Hernández Mora, Mary Molina Panqueva, Moises Molina Panqueva, Genny Carolina Molina Restrepo, Wilson García Reatiga, Wilson Enrique García Guevara, María Antonia Rojas, Elizabeth Daza Rojas, José Antonio Daza Rojas, Wilson Daza Rojas, Javier Daza Rojas and Frady Alexi Leal Pacheco (the latter, even though he had recourse to the contentious-administrative proceedings, did not receive compensation because he had not proved that he was the brother of a victim, or a victim himself) (evidence file, tome 2, folios 787 and 792). ‐ 84 ‐