25 VIII REPARATIONS (Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention) 86. Based on the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention,84 the Court has established that any violation of an international obligation which has caused harm carries with it the duty to provide adequate reparations.85 This provision “reflects a common-law norm that is one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law regarding the responsibility of the States.”86 87. This Tribunal has established that reparations must have a causal link to the facts of the case, the violations declared and the damage attributed to those violations, as well as to the measures requested in reparation of the corresponding damages. Therefore, the Court must examine that concurrence in order to duly rule in keeping with the law.87 88. In consideration of the violations of the American Convention declared in prior chapters, the Tribunal will proceed to examine the requests presented by the Commission and the representative, as well as the arguments of the State. It will do so according to the standards set in the Court’s case law with regard to the nature and scope of the obligation to provide reparations,88 with the purpose of stipulating measures aimed at providing reparations for the damages caused to the victims. A. Injured Party 89. Under the terms of Article 63(1) of the American Convention, those who have been declared victims of a violation of a right enshrined in the Convention are considered injured parties. The victims in this case are the 233 members of SEDAPAL indicated in the Commission’s application, as well as those listed in the annex to this Judgment. They will be considered beneficiaries of the reparations ordered by this Tribunal. 90. On the other hand, although the representative presented some evidence with regard to alleged damages suffered by some of the relatives of the 233 victims, supposedly as a consequence of the violations found, the Court observes that neither the Commission nor the representative argued that those individuals were victims of a violation of a right enshrined in the American Convention (supra para. 39). Because of this, and taking into account the Tribunal’s case law,89 the Court does not consider the 84 Article 63(1) holds that, “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by [the] 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.” 85 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25; Case of Gomes Lund et al (Guerrilha do Araguaia), supra note 17, para. 245, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores, supra note 17, para. 208. 86 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al) V. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 26, 2001. Serie C No. 77, para. 62; Case of Gomes Lund et al (Guerrilha do Araguaia), supra note 17, para. 245, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores, supra note 17, para. 208. 87 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 110, Case of Gomes Lund et al (Guerrilha do Araguaia), supra note 17, para. 246, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores, supra note 17, para. 209. 88 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs, supra note 242, paras. 25 to 27; Case of Vélez Loor, supra note 12, para. 257, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores, supra note 17, para. 210. 89 Cf. 25; Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller”) supra note 68, Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations