and affected legal certainty and the rights of the presumed victim when the sanction was decided. 141. Based on the above, the Court finds that the State is responsible for the violation of Article 9 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument, to the detriment of Mr. Urrutia Laubreaux. IX REPARATIONS 142. Pursuant to 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 obligation to repair it adequately, and that this provision reflects a customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility.134 In addition, this Court has established that the reparations must have a causal nexus with the facts of the case, the violations that have been declared, the harm that has been proved, and the measures requested to redress the respective harm. Therefore, the Court must examine the concurrence of these factors in order to rule appropriately and in accordance with law.135 143. Consequently, and on the basis of the considerations made on the merits, and on the violations of the Convention declared in this judgment, the Court will proceed to examine the claims presented by the Commission and the victim’s representatives, together with the corresponding observations of the State in light of the criteria established in its case law concerning the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparation, in order to establish measures to redress the harm caused.136 A. Injured party 144. 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 instrument. Therefore, the Court considers that Daniel David Urrutia is the “injured party” and, as a victim of the violations declared in Chapter VIII of this judgment, he will be considered the beneficiary of the reparations that are ordered by the Court. B. Measure of satisfaction 145. The representatives requested the dissemination of the Court’s judgment “by all possible means of communication.” 146. The State contested this measure, considering that it “had complied satisfactorily with the only possible appropriate, sufficient and adequate measures of reparation to redress the supposed harm alleged by the petitioner,” by annulling the sanction applied to Judge Urrutia in 2005. Therefore, there was “no need to order any measure of satisfaction.” Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, paras. 24 and 25, and Case of Valle Ambrosio et al. v. Argentina. Merits and reparations. Judgment of July 20, 2020. Series C No. 408, para. 55. 134 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 Valle Ambrosio et al. v. Argentina. Merits and reparations, supra, para. 57. 135 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, supra, paras. 25 and 26, and Case of Valle Ambrosio et al. v. Argentina. Merits and reparations, supra, para. 56. 136 36