36 XIII REPARATIONS (APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 63(1) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION) 126. It is a principle of International Law that any violation of an international obligation that has caused damage entails the duty to provide adequate reparation.115 The Court has based its decisions on this particular subject pursuant to the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention.116 127. Within the framework of the search carried out by the State (supra para. 11 and 12), in accordance with the above considerations on the merits and the violations of the Convention declared to be such in the preceding chapters, as well as in the light of the criteria embodied in the Court’s case law in connection with the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparations,117 the Court will now address the requests for reparations made by the Commission and the representatives, as well as the State’s observations thereof, in order to adopt the measures required to redress the damage. A) Injured Party 128. The Court will now determine who are to be considered “injured parties” under Article 63(1) of the American Convention and, accordingly, the beneficiaries of the reparations set by the Court. 129. There is no controversy among the parties with respect to the fact that Germán Escué Zapata and his next of kin identified in the Commission’s application, must be considered injured parties to the present case. In such regard, the Court considers Mr. Germán Escué Zapata an "injured party," in his capacity of victim of the violations which have been proven to be committed to his detriment, as a result of which he is entitled to the reparations as may be set by the Court. Similarly, such next of kin of Mr. Germán Escué Zapata as were declared victims in the present Judgment, namely, Bertha Escué Coicue (permanent companion), Myriam Zapata Escué (daughter), Mario Pasu (father), Etelvina Zapata (mother), Ayénder Escué Zapata (brother), Imar Escué Zapata (brother), Francya Doli Escué Zapata (sister), Julio Albeiro Pasu Zapata (brother), Aldemar Escué Zapata (brother) and Yonson Escué Zapata (brother) will also be considered "injured parties." 130. Finally, the Court notes that the representatives mentioned that the violations of the human rights committed against Mr. Escué Zapata “adversely affected [...] the Indigenous Community of Resguardo de Jambaló." Nevertheless, the representatives did not request that the Community be considered an injured party. The State sustained that the 115 Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras, supra note 18, para. 25; Case of Bueno-Alves v. Argentina, supra note 9, para. 128, y Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 7, para. 226. 116 Article 63.1 of the Convention provides 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. 117 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations, (Article 63(1) American Convention of Human Rights). Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, para. 43; Case of Bueno-Alves v. Argentina, supra note 9, para 129, and Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 7, para. 228.