redress the respective harm. Consequently, the Court must analyze the concurrence of these factors in order to rule appropriately and according to the law.179 157. Therefore, taking into account the violations declared in the previous chapters, the Court will now examine the claims presented by the Commission and the representatives, as well as the arguments of the State, in light of the criteria established in its case law regarding the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparation, for the purpose of ordering measures to redress the harm caused to the victim.180 158. International case law, and in particular that of the Court, has repeatedly established that the judgment constitutes per se a form of reparation.181 Nevertheless, given the circumstances of this case and the violations committed against the victim, the Court finds it pertinent to order other measures. 179 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 Leguizamón Zaván v. Paraguay, supra, para. 91. 180 Cf. Case of Andrade Salmón v. Bolivia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of December 1, 2016. Series C No. 330, para. 189, and Case of Leguizamón Zaván v. Paraguay, supra, para. 92. 181 Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al. v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of September 19, 1996. Series C No. 29, para. 56, and Case of Romero Ferris v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 15, 2019. Series C 391, para. 180. 46