38 IX REPARATIONS (Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention) 109 131. It is a principle of International Law that any violation of an international obligation that has caused damage gives rise to a duty to adequately redress said violation110. Such obligation to redress is governed by International Law in all its aspects111. The Court has based its decisions in this regard on Article 63(1) of the American Convention. 132. Within the framework of the acknowledgement of responsibility made by the State (supra paras. 8-31), in accordance with the aforementioned considerations on the merits and the violations of the Convention held 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 redress112, the Court will proceed to analyze the arguments presented by the Commission and the representatives with respect to reparations, so as to order the relevant measures to redress the damages. A) INJURED PARTY 133. The Court will now proceed to determine who should be considered as “injured party” under Article 63(1) of the American Convention and therefore as beneficiaries of the reparations set by the Court. 134. First of all, the Court considers Mr. Wilmer Zambrano Vélez, Mr. Segundo Olmedo Caicedo Cobeña and Mr. José Miguel Caicedo Cobeña as “injured party”, due to their status as victims of the violation established in the present Judgment (supra paras. 110), and therefore as beneficiaries of the reparations ordered by the Court for both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, if applicable. 135. Moreover, the Court considers the family members of Mr. Wilmer Zambrano Vélez, Mr. Segundo Olmedo Caicedo Cobeña and Mr. José Miguel Caicedo Cobeña as “injured party”, whom were found to be victims of the violation of the rights enshrined in Article 8 and Article 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof (supra paras. 130). The family members of the victims are to be considered as beneficiaries of the reparations ordered by the Court for non-pecuniary damage. The following persons are considered as “injured party”: 109 Article 63(1) sets forth that : If 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. Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez. Reparations (Art. 63(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25. See also Case of Bueno Alves, supra note 8, para. 128, and Case of the Rochela Massacre, supra note 7, para. 226. 110 Cf. Case of Aloeboetoe et al. Reparations (Art. 63(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of September 10, 1993. Series C No. 15, para. 44; Case of La Cantuta, supra note 7, para. 200, and Case of Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.). Judgment of November 24, 2006, para. 142. 111 Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez. Reparations, supra note 110, paras. 25 and 26; Case of Garrido and Baigorria, supra note 37, para. 43, and Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua-Morales et al.). Reparations, supra note 14, paras, 76-79. See also Case of La Cantuta, supra note 7, paras. 200-203; Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison, supra note 14, paras. 414-416. 112