carries with it the duty to provide adequate reparations. 165 This provision “reflects a customary norm that is one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law regarding the responsibility of the States.” 166 158. This Tribunal has established that reparations must have a causal link to the facts of the case, the violations declared, and the damage attributed to those violations, as well as to the measures requested in reparation of the corresponding damages. Therefore, the Court must examine that concurrence in order to duly rule in keeping with the law. 167 159. In consideration of the violations of the American Convention, the Convention on Forced Disappearance, and the Convention Against Torture declared in the prior chapters, the Tribunal will proceed to examine the requests presented by the Commission and the representatives, as well as the arguments of the State. It will do so according to the standards set in the Court’s jurisprudence with regard to the nature and scope of the obligation to provide reparations, 168 with the purpose of stipulating measures aimed at providing reparations for the damages caused to the victims. A. Injured Party. 160. The Tribunal reiterates that under Article 63(1) of the American Convention, those who have been declared victims of a violation of a right enshrined in the Convention are considered injured parties. The victims in this case are Iván Eladio Torres Millacura, María Leontina Millacura Llaipén, Fabiola Valeria Torres, and Marcos Alejandro Torres Millacura, and thus, they will be considered the beneficiaries of the reparations that this Court orders. B. Obligation to investigate the facts and determine the whereabouts of Iván Eladio Torres Millacura. B.1. Arguments of the parties. 161. The Commission asked the Court to order the State to "carry out a full, impartial, effective, and prompt investigation of the facts, with the purpose of identifying all the masterminds and perpetrators who participated in the facts related to the arbitrary detention, torture, and enforced disappearance of Iván Eladio Torres Millacura, establishing their responsibility, and punishing them.” Likewise, it requested that the Court order the State "to fully, impartially, and effectively investigate the fate or whereabouts of Iván Eladio Torres Millacura," and that "in the event it is established that the victim is no longer alive, [that the State be ordered] to take the necessary measures to turn over his remains to [his] family members." 165 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25; Case of Chocrón Chocrón V. Venezuela, supra note 24, para. 143, and Case of Mejía Idrovo V. Ecuador, supra note 17, para. 126. 166 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán-Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 26, 2001. Series C No. 77, para. 62; Case of Chocrón Chocrón V. Venezuela, supra note 24, para. 143, and Case of Mejía Idrovo V. Ecuador, supra note 17, para. 126. 167 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada et al. V. Bolivia, supra note 69, para 110; Case of Chocrón Chocrón V. Venezuela, supra note 24, para. 146, and Case of Mejía Idrovo V. Ecuador, supra note 17, para. 129. 168 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Reparations and Costs, supra note 165, paras. 25 to 27; Case of Chocrón Chocrón V. Venezuela, supra note 24, para. 144, and Case of Mejía Idrovo V. Ecuador, supra note 17, para. 127. 48