126. Based on the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention, the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has caused harm entails the duty to make adequate reparation and that this provisions reflects a customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility.124 The Court has considered the need to grant diverse measures of reparation in order to redress the harm integrally. Therefore, in addition to pecuniary compensation, measures of restitution, rehabilitation and satisfaction together with guarantees of nonrepetition have special relevance for the harm caused. 125 In addition, this Court has established that the reparations must have a causal nexus with the facts of the case, the violations declared, the harm proved, and the measures requested to redress the respective harm.126 127. Consequently, the Court will now analyze the claims presented by the Commission and the victim as well as the arguments of the State. A. Injured party 128. The Court considers that, pursuant to Article 63(1) of the Convention, the injured party is anyone who has been declared a victim of the violation of any right recognized in this international instrument. Therefore, the Court considers that Julio Casa Nina is the “injured party.” B. Measures of restitution 129. The Commission requested that the State “reinstate the victim in a similar position to the one he served in, with the same remuneration, social benefits and a comparable rank to the one he would be entitled to today had he not been removed. In the event that the victim should not wish to be reinstated or there are objective reasons preventing this, the State must pay the corresponding compensation, which is independent of the reparations relating to pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.” 130. Mr. Casa Nina requested that he be “reinstated as a [superior] or provincial or adjunct prosecutor magistrate with all the prerogatives that would correspond to [him] today, and the pension rights that correspond to [him] with recognition of all the rights, irrespective of the pecuniary compensation or sanction.” 131. The State argued that the National Council of the Judiciary, now the National Board of Justice, was not empowered to reinstate Mr. Casa Nina because the Board “only has competence to appoint, ratify, dismiss and, eventually, to reinstate career magistrates; in other words, those who obtained a post following a public competitive selection process and entered the prosecutorial or judicial career,” which was not the situation in the instant case. Similarly, neither can the Public Prosecution Service order the reinstatement of a non-career provisional prosecutor because it does not have a vacant post given the temporary nature of this designation. It added that the National Council of the Judiciary had appointed a career official to the post of Provincial Deputy Criminal Prosecutor for Huamanga, Judicial District of Ayacucho, on February 9, 2005, so that the post that the victim occupied at the time of the Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25, and Case of Almeida v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 17, 2020. Series C No. 416, para. 54. 124 Cf. Case of the Los Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211, para. 226, and Case of Almeida v. Argentina, supra, para. 55. 125 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 Almeida v. Argentina, supra, para. 56. 126 35