VIII REPARATIONS (APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 63(1) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION) 235. Based on the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention, 367 the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has caused harm entails the obligation to provide adequate reparation, and that this provision reflects a customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility. 368 236. The reparation of the harm caused by the violation of an international obligation requires, whenever possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists in the reinstatement of the previous situation. When this is not feasible, as in most cases of human rights violations, the Court will establish measures to ensure the rights that have been violated and to repair the consequences of the violations. 369 Accordingly, the Court has found it necessary to grant different measures of reparation, in order to redress the harm integrally, so that, in addition to pecuniary compensation, measures of restitution, rehabilitation, and satisfaction, and guarantees of nonrepetition are especially relevant for the damage caused. 370 237. The Court has established that the reparations must have a causal nexus to the facts of the case, the violations declared, the harm verified, and the measures requested to redress the respective harm, and it must take these factors into consideration in order to rule appropriately and in accordance with law. 371 238. In view of the violation of the Convention declared in the preceding chapters, the Court will proceed to examine the claims submitted by the Commission and the representatives, 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 providing redress for the harm caused to the victims. 372 A. Injured party 239. The injured party, pursuant to Article 63(1) of the Convention, is considered to be the person declared a victim of the violation of any right recognized in this instrument. Therefore, this Court considers that the “injured party” is: Jeremías Osorio Rivera, Juana Rivera Lozano, Epifanía Alejandrina Osorio Rivera, Elena Máxima Osorio Rivera, Porfirio Osorio Rivera, Adelaida Osorio Rivera, Silvia Osorio Rivera, Mario Osorio Rivera, Efraín Osorio Rivera, Santa Fe Gaitán Calderón, 367 Article 63(1) of the Convention stipulates 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.” 368 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25, and Case of Luna López v. Honduras, supra, para. 213. 369 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, supra, para. 26, and Case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador, supra, para. 244. 370 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 88, paras. 79 to 81, and Case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador, supra, para. 244. 371 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada v. Bolivia, supra, para. 110, and Case of Luna López v. Honduras, supra, para. 215. 372 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Reparations and costs, supra, paras. 25 to 27, and Case of Luna López v. Honduras, supra, para. 214. 84