IX REPARATIONS 141 164. Pursuant to the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention, the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has caused harm entails the obligation to remedy it adequately, and that this provision reflects a customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on state responsibility. 142 165. Remedying the harm produced by the infringement of an international obligation requires, whenever possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists in restoring the prior situation. When this is not feasible, as in the majority of cases of human rights violations, the Court will determine measures to guarantee the violated rights and to remedy the consequences of those violations. 143 Therefore, the Court has considered “the need to provide different types of reparation so as to fully redress the damages, therefore in addition to pecuniary measures, other measures such as satisfaction, restitution, rehabilitation, and guarantees of non-repetition have special relevance due to the gravity of the infringements and collective nature of the damage caused.” 144 166. Furthermore, this Court has established that reparations must have a causal nexus with the facts of the case, the violations declared, the harm proven, and the measures requested to redress the harm. Accordingly, the Court must analyze the concurrence of these factors in order to rule appropriately and in keeping with the law. 145 167. Therefore, in accordance with the above considerations on the merits and the violations of the Convention declared in this judgment, the Court will proceed to analyze the claims put forth by the Commission and the victim’s representatives, as well as the State’s observations on them, in light of the criteria established in its case law concerning the nature and scope of the obligation to remedy, with the purpose of ordering measures designed to redress the harm caused. 146 A. Injured party 168. Pursuant to Article 63(1) of the Convention, this Court considers that an injured party is anyone who has been declared a victim of the violation of any right recognized in the Convention. This Court therefore considers Gonzalo Orlando Cortez Espinoza to be “the injured party,” who as victim of the violations declared in chapter VIII will be considered the beneficiary of any reparations the Court orders. B. Measure of satisfaction Application of 63(1) of the American Convention. Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25, and Case of Moya Chacón et al. v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of May 23, 2022. Series C No. 451, para. 94. 143 Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, supra, para. 26, and Case of Deras García et al. v. Honduras. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of August 25, 2022. Series C No. 462, para. 91. 144 Case of the “Las Dos Erres” Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211, para. 226, and Case of Deras García et al. v. Honduras, supra, para. 91. 145 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 110, and Case of Deras García et al. v. Honduras, supra, para. 92. 146 Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, supra, para. 25 and 26, and Case of Deras García et al. v. Honduras, supra, para. 93. 141 142 36