X REPARATIONS (Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention) 106. Pursuant to the terms of Article 63(1) of the American Convention, 117 the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has caused damage entails the duty to provide adequate reparation118 and that “this provision reflects a common-law norm that is one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law regarding the responsibility of the State.” 119 107. The Tribunal has established that reparations must have a causal link with the facts of the case, the alleged violations, the proven damages, as well as with the measures requested to repair the respective damages. Therefore, the Court must observe such concurrence in order to duly declare according to law. 120 108. In consideration of the violations of the American Convention so declared in the preceding chapters, the Tribunal shall address the requests for reparations made by the Commission and the representatives, as well as the State’s observations thereof, in light of the criteria embodied in the Court’s jurisprudence in connection with the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparations, 121 in order to adopt the measures required to redress the damage caused to the victim. A. Injured Party 109. This Tribunal considers as injured party, pursuant to Article 63(1) of the Convention, the person who has been declared to be the victim of the violation of some of the rights enshrined in the Convention. In the instant case, the victims are Mr. Pedro Miguel Vera Vera and Ms. Francisca Mercedes 117 This article states 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.” 118 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25; Case of Salvador Chiriboga V. Ecuador. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 3 de marzo de 2011 Series C No. 222, para. 32, and Case of Abrill Alosilla et al. V. Perú, supra note 7, para. 86. 119 Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) V. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 26 de mayo de 2001. Series C No. 77, para. 62; Case of Salvador Chiriboga V. Ecuador, supra note 127, para. 32, and Case of Abrill Alosilla et al. V. Perú, supra note 7, para. 86. 120 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 Gelman V. Uruguay, supra note 12, para. 248, and Case of Abrill Alosilla et al. V. Perú, supra note 7, para. 87. 121 Cf Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras, supra note 127, paras. 25 a 27; Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores V. México, supra note 7, para. 210, and Case of Abrill Alosilla et al. V. Perú, supra note 7, para. 88. 42