caused, and therefore, in addition to pecuniary compensation, the measures of restitution, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition are especially relevant267. 242. This Court has held that reparations must have a causal nexus with the facts of the case, the violations declared, the damages verified and the measures requested to repair the consequences of those damages. Therefore, based on the considerations of the merits and the violations of the Convention declared in the preceding chapters, the Court must adhere to this concurrence in order to rule properly and according to law268. A. Injured Party 243. Under the terms of Article 63.1 of the Convention, the Court considers the injured party to be that person who has been declared the victim of a violation of some right enshrined in the Convention.269 In the case at hand, the Court found that the State violated the human rights of Karen Atala Riffo and her daughters M., V., and R. ((supra paras. ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia., ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia., ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia., ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia., 222, 230 and 237). In relation to the girl V., for the purposes of reparations, the terms set forth in paragraph 71 of this Judgment shall apply. 244. The Court notes that the representatives have requested that the reparations be extended to persons that the Inter-American Commission did not name as alleged victims in this case. Specifically, they requested “the full reparation of pecuniary and nonpecuniary damages” allegedly caused to: i) María del Carmen Riffo Véjar, mother of Karen Atala and grandmother of M., V., and R.; ii) Emma Zelmira María de Ramón Acevedo, partner of Karen Atala until 2010; iii) Sergio Ignacio Vera Atala, eldest son of Karen Atala; iv) Judith Riffo Véjar, great aunt of the children M., V., and R; and v) Elías Atala Riffo, brother of Karen Atala. 245. However, the Court points out that the Commission did not argue, either in its Merits report or in the application, that these persons are victims of violations of the rights enshrined in the American Convention. Consequently, and having regard to the Court’s case law270, the Court does not consider the family members of the victims in the present case as the “injured party” and accordingly determines that they shall be entitled to 267 Cf. Case of the Mapiripán Massacre supra note 93, para. 294 and Case of Barbani Duarte et al., supra note 91, para. 2 268 Cf. Case of Baldeón García v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 183 and Case of Fontevecchia and D`Amico, supra note 28, para. 101. 269 Cf. Case of Bayarri v. Argentina, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of October 30, 2008. Series C No. 187, para. 126 and Case of Fontevecchia and D`Amico, supra note 28, para. 101. 270 Cf. Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller”) v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2009. Series C No. 198, para. 112 and Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2011. Series C No. 228, para. 131. 73