358. Consequently, taking into consideration the circumstances of this case, the Court concludes that the State violated the right to personal integrity established in Article 5(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Zora Herzog, Clarice Herzog, Ivo Herzog and André Herzog. VIII REPARATIONS (Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention) 359. Based on the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention, 397 the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has produced harm entails the obligation to make adequate reparation and that this provision reflects a customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary law on State responsibility. 398 360. Reparation of the harm caused by the violation of an international obligation requires, whenever possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists in the reestablishment of the previous situation. If this is not feasible, as in most cases of human rights violations, the Court will determine measures to guarantee the rights that have been violated and to redress the consequences of the violations. 399 361. The Court has established that the reparations must have a causal nexus to the facts of the case, the violations declared, the harm proved, and the measures requested to repair the respective harm. Accordingly, the Court must observe the concurrence of these factors to rule appropriately and pursuant to the law. 400 362. Taking into account the violations declared in the preceding chapter, the Court will proceed to examine the claims presented by the Commission and the victims’ representatives, together with the arguments of the State, in light of the criteria established in the Court’s case law in relation to the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparation, in order to establish measures aimed at repairing the harm caused to the victims. 401 A. Injured party 363. The Court reiterates that, in the terms of Article 63(1) of the Convention, it will consider those it has declared victims of the violation of any right recognized in this instrument to be the injured parties. 402 Accordingly, the Court considers that Clarice Herzog, Ivo Herzog, André Herzog and Zora Herzog are the “injured parties” and, as victims of the violations declared in 397 Article 63(1) of the American Convention establishes 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.” 398 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, para. 25, and Case of the Dismissed Employees of PetroPeru et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2017. Series C No. 344, para. 194. 399 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, para. 26, and Case of the Dismissed Employees of PetroPeru et al. v. Peru, para. 195. 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 Lagos del Campo v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2017. Series C No. 340, para. 193. 400 401 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, paras. 25 to 27, and Case of the Dismissed Employees of PetroPeru et al. v. Peru, para. 197. Cf. Case of the La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 233, and Case of Andrade Salmón v. Bolívia, para. 190. 402 92