domestic decision or a determination by this Court as to whether the alleged victims effectively had grounds for their claims for the rights referred to in the said article 31. Consequently, the Court has not found any evidence to declare a violation of Article 21 of the American Convention on Human Rights. VIII REPARATIONS (APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 63(1) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION) 239. Based on the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention,274 the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has caused harm entails the obligation to provide adequate reparation,275 and that this provision reflects a customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility.276 240. The reparation of the damage caused by the violation of an international obligation requires, whenever possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists of the re-establishment of the previous situation. If this is not possible, as in most cases of human rights violations, the Court will determine measures to guarantee the rights violated, to repair the consequences of the violations that occurred, and to establish compensation for the damage caused.277 Consequently, the Court has considered the need to grant different measures of reparation, in order to redress the damage fully, so that, in addition to pecuniary compensation, measures of restitution and satisfaction, and guarantees of non-repetition are especially relevant to the damage caused.278 241. 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 to repair the corresponding damage. Therefore, the Court must verify that concurrence in order to rule duly and in keeping with the law.279 A. Injured Party 242. The Court reiterates that, under the terms of Article 63(1) of the American Convention, anyone who has been declared a victim of the violation of any right 274 This article stipulates 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..” 275 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25; Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, supra note 12, para. 178, and Case of López Mendoza v. Venezuela, supra note 12, para. 207. 276 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of May 26, 2001. Series C No. 77, para. 62; Case of Torres Millacura et al. v. Argentina, supra note 18, para. 157, and Case of López Mendoza v. Venezuela, supra note 12, para. 207. 277 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, supra note 275, para. 26; Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador, supra note 251, para. 128, and Case of López Mendoza v. Venezuela, supra note 12, para. 209. 278 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 88, paras. 79 to 81; Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela, supra note 18, para. 145, and Case of López Mendoza v. Venezuela, supra note 12, para. 209. 279 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru, supra note 278, para. 42; Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 43; Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, supra note 12, para. 179, and Case of López Mendoza v. Venezuela, supra note 12, para. 210. 88