56 consequences of those violations.283 176. The Court has established that reparations must have a causal connection to the facts of the case, the violations declared, the damage proved, and the measures requested to repair the resulting harm. Therefore, the Court must observe the concurrence of these elements in order to rule appropriately and in accordance with the law.284 177. Before examining the reparations claimed, the Court advises that the instant case is the third case brought before it concerning human rights violations related to the forced disappearance and appropriation of thousands of children during the Salvadoran armed conflict, a phenomenon that has produced diverse effects both in the individual and the collective spheres. In the cases of the Serrano Cruz Sisters and Contreras et al., the Court ordered several measures of reparation aimed at comprehensively redressing the damage. Thus, in addition to pecuniary compensation, measures of restitution and rehabilitation, the Court also ordered measures of satisfaction285 and guarantees of non-repetition,286 as measures of special relevance, aimed at redressing the magnitude of the effects and the collective nature of the harm caused beyond the individual victims of the respective cases, and as a mechanism to help prevent the occurrence of similar human rights violations in future. Moreover, as was emphasized in the preceding chapter, in the Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places, among other measures of reparation, the Court ordered the State to ensure that the General Amnesty Law for the Consolidation of Peace would never again represent an obstacle to the investigation of the facts that were the subject of that case or to the identification, prosecution and punishment of those responsible for these and other similar serious human rights violations that took place during the armed conflict in El Salvador. 178. Both the representatives and the Commission appreciated the State’s acknowledgment of responsibility and the good will expressed in this case, and in previous cases, but noted the lack of correlation between this position and its compliance with measures of a structural nature, particularly regarding access to justice through the effective investigation of cases. The State, for its part, expressed its willingness to adopt several of the measures requested and indicated that it did “not dispute the need to put into practice its statements and acknowledgements and to ensure its procedural actions are consistent with this position.” However, in light of the experience accumulated in the two previous cases, it considered it necessary to specify the terms and scope of its acceptance of the measures requested. 179. The Court reiterates that the State must prevent the recurrence of human rights violations such as those described in this case and must therefore take all pertinent legal, administrative and other measures necessary to prevent similar events from occurring in the future, in fulfilment of its obligations to safeguard and guarantee the fundamental rights recognized by the American Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, supra, para. 26, and Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, members and activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People) v. Chile, supra, para. 413. 283 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada v. Bolivia, supra, para. 110, and Case of Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 245. 284 These measures seek, inter alia, the recognition of the dignity of the victims or to transmit an official message of reprobation of the human rights violations in question, and to prevent the repetition of violations such as those in the instant case. Cf. Case of Cruz Flores v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 18, 2004. Series C No. 115, para. 164. 285 “Guarantees of non-repetition […] will contribute to prevention.” Principle 23 of Basic Principles and guidelines on the right to a remedy and reparation for victims of gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations of international humanitarian law. Doc. A/Res/60/147. Resolution approved by the United Nations General Assembly on December 16, 2005, Principle 23. 286