- 117 - establishment of the previous situation. 437 If this is not feasible, as in most cases of human rights violations, this Court will determine measures to guarantee the rights that have been violated and to redress the consequences of the violations. 438 Therefore, the Court has found it necessary to grant different measures of reparation in order to redress the harm comprehensively, so that in addition to pecuniary compensation, measures of restitution, rehabilitation and satisfaction, and guarantees of non-repetition have special relevance for the harm caused.439 327. This Court has 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. Therefore, the Court must observe the concurrence of these factors to rule duly and pursuant to the law.440 328. Based on the violations declared in the preceding chapter, the Court will proceed to analyze the claims presented by the Commission and the representatives, as well as the arguments of the State, in light of the criteria established in its case law concerning the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparation, in order to establish measures addressed at redressing the harm caused to the victims.441 329. International case law and, in particular, that of the Court has established repeatedly that the judgment constitutes, per se, a form of reparation.442 However, considering the circumstances of this case and the suffering that the violations committed caused the victims, the Court finds it pertinent to establish other measures. A. Injured party 330. This Court reiterates that, pursuant to Article 63(1) of the Convention, the injured party is considered to be a person who has been declared a victim of the violation of any of the rights recognized therein. Therefore, the Court considers that Yolanda Muñoz Diosdada, Norma Aidé Jiménez Osorio, María Patricia Romero Hernández, Mariana Selvas Gómez, Georgina Edith Rosales Gutiérrez, Ana María Velasco Rodríguez, Suhelen Gabriela Cuevas Jaramillo, Bárbara Italia Méndez Moreno, María Cristina Sánchez Hernández, Angélica Patricia Torres Linares and Claudia Hernández Martínez and their relatives identified in paragraph 324 of this judgment, are the Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 26, and Case of López Soto et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2018. Series C No. 362, para. 269. 437 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 26, and Case of López Soto et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2018. Series C No. 362, para. 269. 438 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, and Case of López Soto et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2018. Series C No. 362, para. 269. 439 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 López Soto et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2018. Series C No. 362, para. 270. 440 Cf. Case of Andrade Salmón v. Bolivia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of December 1, 2016. Series C No. 330, para. 189, and Case of López Soto et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2018. Series C No. 362, para. 270. 441 Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al. v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of September 19, 1996. Series C No. 29, para. 56, and Case of Terrones Silva et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2018. Series C No. 360, para. 238. 442