is free up to university level; in other words, the petitioner and her children have a right to free education guaranteed by the State, and this is recognized in article 28 of the Constitution.” 192. The Court recalls that, for the effects of this Judgment, it only considers Melba del Carmen Suárez Peralta and Melba Peralta Mendoza as the “injured party” and they, as victims of the violations declared in this Judgment, will be considered beneficiaries of the reparations ordered by the Court (supra para. 28). Thus, it finds that the representative’s request that scholarships be awarded to the children Gandy Alberto, Katherine Madeline and Marilyn Melba, all with the surnames Cerezo Suárez, is inadmissible. 193. Furthermore, as it has established in other cases, 232 the Court considers that the “damage to the life project” involves the loss or the serious impairment of opportunities for personal development, irreparably or in a way that it would be difficult to repair. This damage results from the limitations suffered by a person to relate to and enjoy his or her personal, family or social surroundings, owing to serious physical, mental, psychological or emotional injuries. 233 194. In this regard, the Court has indicated that in order to rule appropriately and in keeping with law, reparations must have a causal nexus with the facts of the case, the violations declared, the damage proved, and the measures requested to repair the respective damage. 234 In this regard, it underlines, with regard to the payment of the university studies of Mrs. Suárez Peralta, that neither the factual framework nor the analysis of the rights that were declared to have been violated reveal any situation that permits the Court to establish a proven causal nexus between Mrs. Suárez Peralta’s failure to complete her studies and the violations declared in this Judgment. Taking this into account, the Court finds it inappropriate to establish a measure of reparation in this regard. 3. Guarantees of non-repetition 195. The Court recalls that the State must prevent the repetition of human rights violations such as those described in this case and, therefore, adopt all the legal, administrative and other measures that are necessary to ensure that the exercise of the rights is effective, 235 pursuant to the obligation to avoid similar events occurring in the future, in compliance with the obligations of prevention, and guarantee of the human rights recognized by the American Convention. 236 a) Request to adopt measures under domestic law 196. The Commission asked the Court to order the State to “adopt the measures necessary to ensure that the laws related to the exercise of the medical profession are 232 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 42, para. 150, and Case of Furlan and family members v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012 Series C No. 246, para. 285. 233 Cf. Case of Furlan and family members, supra, para. 285. 234 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada et al., supra, and Case of Fontevecchia and D’Amico, supra, para. 99. 235 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, Reparations and costs, supra, para. 166, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. Merits and Reparations. Judgment of June 27, 2012. Series C No. 245, para. 221. 236 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, Reparations and costs, supra, para. 166, and Case of Artavia Murillo et al. (In vitro fertilization), para. 334. 53