28 94. It is a principle of International Law that every violation of an international obligation that has caused damage gives rise to a duty to provide adequate reparations therefor.81 The obligation to redress is regulated by International Law.82 The Court has based its decisions in this respect on Article 63(1) of the American Convention. 95. In accordance with the considerations on the merits of the case and the violations of the Convention determined in the previous chapters, and in light of the criteria established in the Court’s jurisprudence regarding the nature and scope of the obligation to redress,83 the Court will proceed to analyze the parties’ arguments concerning reparations, so as to order measures aimed at redressing the violations. A) Injured Party 96. The Commission and the representatives considered Tyrone DaCosta Cadogan to be the “injured party” in the present case. 97. The Court reiterates that those who have been declared victims of a violation of a right recognized in the Convention are considered “injured parties.”84 Furthermore, this Court’s jurisprudence has stated that the alleged victims in a case must be indicated in the application and in the Report of the Commission issued in accordance with Article 50 of the Convention.85 98. Therefore, in accordance with Article 63(1) of the American Convention, this Tribunal considers Tyrone DaCosta Cadogan the “injured party” in the present case. Consequently, in light of the violations declared in the present Judgment (supra paras. 52, 57, 58, 59, 71, 75, and 90), the Court considers Mr. DaCosta Cadogan beneficiary of the reparations to be ordered. B) Measures of Satisfaction and Guarantees of Non-Repetition 99. The Court will determine the measures of satisfaction that seek to repair immaterial damages and that are not of a pecuniary nature, and will order measures of public scope or consequence.86 81 Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25; Case of Escher et al., supra note 6, para. 221, and Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller”), supra note 6, para. 108. 82 Cf. Case of Aloeboetoe et al. v. Suriname. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 10, 1993. Series C No. 15, para. 44; Case of Escher et al., supra note 6, para. 221, and Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller”), supra note 6, para. 108. 83 Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez, supra note 81, paras. 25-26; Case of Escher et al., supra note 6, para. 222, and Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller”), supra note 6, para. 109. 84 Cf. Case of the “White Van" (Paniagua-Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 25, 2001. Series C No. 76, para. 82; Case of Escher et al., supra note 6, para. 223, and Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller”), supra note 6, para. 112. 85 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006 Series C No. 148, para. 91; Case of Escher et al., supra note 6, para. 82, and Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller”), supra note 6, para. 112. 86 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. 84; Case of Escher et al., supra note 6, para. 236, and Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller”), supra note 6, para. 135.