of the main principles of contemporary International Law in relation to a State's responsibility. 217 170. In this regard, repairing the damage caused by the breach of an international obligation requires, whenever possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists of reestablishing the previously existing situation. If this is not feasible, as occurs in most cases of human rights violations, this Court will determine measures to guarantee the rights violated and repair the consequences produced by the infractions. 218 Therefore, the Court has deemed it necessary to grant various forms of reparation measures to comprehensively redress the harm caused. In addition to monetary compensation, measures of restitution, rehabilitation, satisfaction, and guarantees of non-repetition are of particular relevance in addressing the damages inflected. 219 171. This Court has established that the reparations must have a causal link with the facts of the case, the declared violations, the proven damages, as well as the measures requested to repair the respective damages. Therefore, the Court must observe such coincidence in order to adjudge make a judgment in accordance with the law. 220 172. Taking into account the violations of the American Convention declared in the preceding chapters, in light of the criteria established in the Court's case law in relation to the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparations, 221 the Court will analyze the claims presented by the Commission and the representatives, as well as the arguments of the State in this regard, with the aim of subsequently implementing measures to remedy such violations. A. Injured Party 173. Pursuant Article 63(1) of the Convention, this Court considers the injured party to be anyone who has been declared a victim of the violation of any right. In this case, the Court considers Juan Carlos Flores Bedregal, Olga Beatriz Flores Bedregal, Eliana Isbelia Flores Bedregal (deceased), Verónica Flores Bedregal, and Lilian Teresa Flores Bedregal as "injured parties." 222 B. Obligation to investigate the facts, prosecute, and, where appropriate, punish those responsible and determine the whereabouts of the victim 217 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs. judgment of November 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25, and Case Deras García et al. v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. judgment of August 25, 2022. Series C No. 462, para. 90. 218 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs, supra, para. 26, and Case of Deras García et al. v. Honduras, supra, para. 91. 219 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 Deras García et al. v. Honduras, supra, para. 92. 220 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia, supra, para. 110, and Case of Deras García et al. v. Honduras, supra, para. 92. 221 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs, supra, paras. 25-27, and Case of Deras García et al. v. Honduras, supra, para. 93. 222 Adela Hortensia Villamil, who presented herself as a life partner of Mr. Flores Bedregal, in a separate claim before the Inter-American Commission, does not participate as a victim in this case and, therefore, is not considered as an injured party for the purposes of determining the reparation measures of this judgment. The Court is aware that Ms. Villamil reached a direct agreement with the State that has not been endorsed by the Commission, as a result of which she has already become a beneficiary of satisfaction and pecuniary measures (supra footnote 28). 51