consequences of those violations.58 Therefore, the Court has found it necessary to grant different measures of reparation in order to redress the harm integrally so that, in addition to pecuniary compensation, measures of restitution, rehabilitation and satisfaction and guarantees of nonrepetition have special relevance for the harm caused.59 56. This Court has also established that reparations should have a causal nexus with the facts of the case, the violations declared, the harm proved, and the measures requested to redress the respective harm. Accordingly, the Court must analyze the concurrence of these factors in order to rule appropriately and in keeping with law.60 57. Consequently, taking into account the State’s recognition of responsibility and the violations recognized, the Court will proceed to examine the claims presented by the Commission and the representative, together with the corresponding observations of the State, in light of the criteria established in its case law on the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparation, in order to establish measures to redress the harm caused. A. Injured party 58. Under the terms of Article 63(1) of the Convention, this Court considers as injured party anyone who has been declared a victim of the violation of any right recognized therein. Therefore, the Court considers the “injured party” to be Mr. Rufino Jorge Almeida. B. Measures of restitution 59. The Commission asked the Court to “[o]ffer Mr. Rufino Jorge Almeida a suitable, effective, and expeditious mechanism for reconsideration of his request for compensation, taking into account the arguments he raised regarding the violation to the right to equal protection under the law, in the framework of both the first administrative proceedings and the subsequent judicial appeals, as well as the subsequent petitions filed after the precedent set by Robasto case.” The representative agreed with the request submitted by the Commission, with the same terms. 60. The State, in the framework of its recognition of responsibility, committed to “reevaluating the request for compensation submitted in a timely basis by Mr. Almeida, pursuant to the conclusions of the Report on the Merits of the [Commission] and paragraph c.3.1 of the [pleadings and motions brief] of the Victim.” 61. In this case, and taking into account the recognition made by the State, this Court found that there was a violation of the right to have a decision that provides adequate grounds, to equal protection, and to judicial protection, as enshrined in articles 8(1), 24, and 25(1) of the Convention, in relation to the obligations established in articles 1(1) and 2 of the same instrument (supra para. 53). Effectively, Mr. Almeida was initially administratively and judicially denied his claims for compensation under Law 24,043 for the time during which he was under de facto supervised release during the dictatorship. Subsequently, following the change in case law on the matter and despite presenting a series of facts identical to the request for compensation presented by his wife, Claudia Graciela Estevez, the appeal to revoke judgment filed administratively was Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations, and Costs, supra, para. 26; and Case of Martínez Esquivia v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections. Merits and Reparations. Judgment of October 6, 2020. Series C No. 412, para. 148. 58 Cf. Case of the “Las Dos Erres” Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211, para. 226, and Case of Ximenes Lopes. Colombia, para. 147. 59 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 Olivares Muñoz et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 142. 60 17