59 criminal conviction by a competent court. The State also demonstrated that the measure met the requirements of lawfulness, necessity and proportionality. The Court therefore holds that the State did not violate article 23 of the American Convention in injury of the alleged victims. IX REPARATIONS (Application of article 63(1) of the American Convention) 232. Pursuant to the terms of article 63(1) of the American Convention,211 the Court has held that every violation of an international obligation which results in harm creates a duty to make adequate reparation212 and that this provision reflects a customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility.213 233. The Court has established that reparations must have a causal nexus with the facts of the case, the alleged violations and the proven damages, as well as with the measures requested to repair the resulting damages. Therefore, the Court must observe such coincidence in order to adjudge and declare according to law. 214 234. Based on the discussion of the merits and the violations of the American Convention as sustained in Chapter VIII of this judgment, the Court will proceed to examine the arguments and recommendations brought forth by the Inter-American Commission and the claims of the representatives of the victims, in light of the criteria established in the Court’s case law regarding the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparations, in order to adopt the measures required to repair the damage caused to the victims.215 A. Injured Party 235. The Court, under the terms of article 63(1) of the Convention, holds as an injured party anyone who has been declared the victim of violation of a right recognized therein. Therefore, this Court holds the “injured parties” to be Mr. Hugo Oscar Argüelles, Mr. Enrique Jesús Aracena, Mr. Carlos Julio Arancibia, Mr. Julio César Allendes, Mr. Ricardo Omar Candurra, Mr. Miguel Oscar Cardozo, Mr. José Eduardo Di Rosa, Mr. Carlos Alberto Galluzzi, Mr. Gerardo Giordano, Mr. Aníbal Ramón Machín, Mr. Miguel Ángel Maluf, Mr. Ambrosio Marcial, Mr. Luis José López Mattheus, Mr. José Arnaldo Mercau, Mr. Félix Oscar Morón, Mr. Horacio Eugenio Oscar Muñoz, Mr. Juan Italo Óbolo, Mr. Alberto Jorge Pérez, Mr. Enrique Luján Pontecorvo and Mr. Nicolás Tomasek, who as victims of the violations declared severally in Chapters VIII1 and VIII-2, will be held as beneficiaries of the reparations ordered by the Court. 211 Article 6i3(1) of the American Convention states, “If 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.” 212 Cfr. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, par. 25, and Case of Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala, par. 243. 213 Cfr. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs, par. 25, y Case of Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala, par. 243. 214 Cfr. Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, par. 110, and Case of Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala, par. 245. 215 Cfr. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs, par. 25 and 26, and Case of Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala, par. 244.