246. Based on the violations of the American Convention, the Convention on Forced Disappearance, the Convention against Torture, and the Convention of Belém do Pará declared in this Judgment, the Court will proceed to analyze the claims submitted by the Commission and by the representatives, and also the State’s arguments, in light of the criteria established in the Court’s case law as regards the nature and scope of the obligation to repair, in order to establish measures designed to repair the harm caused to the victims.320 247. This Court has established that the reparations must have a causal nexus with the facts of the case, the violations declared, the damage proved, and the measures requested to repair the respective damage. Therefore, the Court must observe the said concurrence in order to rule appropriately and in keeping with the law.321 248. Reparation of the damage 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 to guarantee the rights that have been violated and to repair the consequences of such violations.322 Thus, the Court has considered the need to grant diverse measures of reparation in order to redress the damage comprehensively, so that, in addition to pecuniary compensations, measures of restitution and satisfaction, together with guarantees of non-repetition have special relevance for the damage caused.323 In the instant case, the Court will take into consideration the grave and massive human rights violations committed by the State in the context of the internal armed conflict, the lack of due diligence in the investigation of the facts, and also the consequences of the latter. A. Injured Party 249. The Court reiterates that, in the terms of Article 63(1) of the Convention, the injured party is considered to be the person who has been declared the victim of the violation of any right recognized in the Convention. Therefore, the Court considers as “injured parties” those persons mentioned in paragraphs 127, 135, 150 and 237 and Annexes VI and VII of this Judgment, who, as victims of the violations declared herein, will be considered beneficiaries of the reparations ordered by the Court. 250. In addition, the Commission asked the Court to order the State “[t]o establish a mechanism that will facilitate the complete identification of the next of kin of the executed and disappeared victims, so they may be beneficiaries of reparations.” In addition, it requested that the State be ordered to “[e]stablish a mechanism to determine the identity of the persons who disappeared during the massacre and of the survivors.” Neither the representatives nor the State referred to these requests. 320 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, supra, paras. 25 and 26, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, supra, para. 283. 321 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia, supra, para. 110, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, supra, para. 281. 322 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, supra, para. 26 and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, supra, para. 280. 323 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 88, paras. 77 to 81, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, supra, para. 280. 86