established in Article 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1), 2 and 13 of this instrument. VII REPARATIONS (APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 63(1) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION) 269. Under the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention,314 the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has caused harm entails the obligation to make satisfactory reparation, and that this provision reflects a customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility.315 270. The Court has established that the reparations must have a causal nexus with the facts of the case, the violations that have been declared and the harm that has been proved, as well as with the measures requested in order to redress the respective harm. Therefore, the Court must observe this concurrence in order to rule appropriately and in accordance with law. 316 271. Based on the violations of the American Convention declared in Chapter VI of this Judgment, the Court will proceed to examine the arguments and recommendations presented by the Commission, the claims of the victims’ representatives, and the arguments of the State, in light of the criteria established in its case law in relation to the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparation, so as to establish measures aimed at redressing the harm caused to the victims.317 272. The Court considers that, in cases such as this one, the reparation should help strengthen the cultural identity of the indigenous and tribal peoples, guaranteeing the control of their own institutions, cultures, traditions and territories in order to contribute to their development in keeping with their life projects, and present and future needs. The Court also recognizes that the situation of the indigenous peoples varies according to national and regional characteristics, as well as to their different historical and cultural traditions. Consequently, the Court finds that the measures of reparation granted should provide effective mechanisms, in keeping with their specific ethnic perspective, that permit them to define their priorities as regards their development and evolution as a people.318 A. Injured party 273. The Court considers that anyone who has been declared a victim of the violation of any right recognized in the Convention is an injured party, in the terms of Article 63(1) thereof. 314 Article 63(1) of the American Convention establishes 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.” 315 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25, and Case of the Garífuna Community of Punta Piedra and its members, supra, para. 313. 316 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada el al. v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 110, and Case of the Garífuna Community of Punta Piedra and its members, supra, para. 314. 317 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Reparations and Costs, supra, paras. 25 and 26, and Case of the Garífuna Community of Punta Piedra and its members, supra, para. 315. 318 Cf. Case of the Garífuna Community of Punta Piedra and its members, supra, para. 316. 70