- 93 296. Based on the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention,373 the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has caused harm entails the obligation to make adequate reparation, and that this provisions reflects a customary norm that is one of the basic principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility.374 297. 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 re-establishment of the previous situation. If this is not feasible, as in most cases of human rights violations, the Court will determine measures that ensure the rights that have been violated and redress the consequences of the violations.375 Therefore, the Court has found it necessary to award different measures of reparation in order to redress the harm integrally, so that in addition to pecuniary compensation, the measures of restitution and satisfaction, and also guarantees of non-repetition have special relevance for the harm caused.376 298. This Court has established that reparations must have a causal nexus to the facts of the case, the violations that have been declared, the harm proved, and the measures requested to repair this harm. The Court must observe the concurrence of these factors to rule appropriately and pursuant to law.377 299. Taking into consideration the violations declared in the preceding chapters, the Court will now examine the claims presented by the Commission and the representative, as well as the arguments of the State, in light of the criteria established in its case law concerning the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparation,378 in order to establish measures to redress the harm caused to the victim. A. Injured party 300. The Court reiterates that, pursuant to Article 63(1) of the Convention, it considers the injured party to be anyone declared a victim of the violation of any right recognized therein. Therefore, this Court considers that Wong Ho Wing is the “injured party” and, in his capacity as victim of the violations declared in Chapters X and XI, he will be the beneficiary of the following measures ordered by the Court. B. Measures of integral reparation: restitution and satisfaction B.1) Restitution B.1.a) Extradition process 373 Article 63(1) of the Convention stipulates that: “[i]f the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by this Convention, the Court shall rule that the injured party be ensured the enjoyment of his right or freedom that was violated. It shall also rule, if appropriate, that the consequences of the measure or situation that constituted the breach of such right or freedom be remedied and that fair compensation be paid to the injured party.” 374 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25, and Case of Cruz Sánchez et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 451. 375 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, supra, para. 25, and Case of Cruz Sánchez et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 452. 376 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 88, paras. 79 to 81, and Case of Cruz Sánchez et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 452. 377 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada v. Bolivia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 110, and Case of Cruz Sánchez et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 453. 378 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, supra, paras. 25 to 27, and Case of Cruz Sánchez et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 454.