constitutes one of the main principles of contemporary International Law in relation to a State's liability.132 106. In this regard, reparation of harm brought about by the violation of an international obligation consists in full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which includes the restoration of the prior situation. If this is not feasible, as occurs in most cases of human rights violations, this Court must rule that the injured party be ensured the enjoyment of his right or freedom that was violated.133 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.134 107. This Court has established that reparations must have a causal nexus with the facts of the case, the alleged violations, 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 make a judgment in accordance with the law.135 108. Taking into account the violations of the American Convention declared in the preceding chapters, in light of the criteria established in the Court's case law in relation to the scope and content of the obligation to make reparations,136 the Court will analyze the claims presented by the Commission and the representatives, as well as the arguments of the State in this regard, with the aim of subsequently implementing measures to remedy such violations. A. Injured party 109. Pursuant to Article 63(1) of the Convention, this Court considers the injured party to be anyone who has been declared a victim of the violation of any right in this Judgment. Therefore, this Court considers Alejandro Nissen Pessolani to be the “injured party,” who, as a victim of the violations declared in Chapter VI, will be the beneficiary of the reparations ordered by the Court. B. Measures of restitution 110. The Commission requested the reinstatement of Mr. Nissen Pessolani "in a position similar to the one he held with the same remuneration, social benefits, and rank comparable to the one he would have held today if he had not been dismissed.” In the event that the victim does not wish to be reincorporated or that there are objective reasons that prevent this reincorporation, the Commission requested that compensation be ordered to be paid separately from the reparations for pecuniary and moral damages. 132 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25, and Case of Cortez Espinoza v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of October 18, 2022. Series C No. 468, para. 164. 133 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, supra, para. 26, and Case of Cortez Espinoza v. Ecuador, supra, para. 165. 134 Cf. 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, y Case of Cortez Espinoza v. Ecuador, supra, para. 165. 135 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 110, and Case of Cortez Espinoza v. Ecuador, supra, para. 166. 136 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, supra, paras. 25 and 26, and Case of Cortez Espinoza v. Ecuador, supra, para. 167. 33