X REPARATIONS (APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 63(1) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION) 161. Under the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention, 218 the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that may have resulted in damage entails the obligation to make adequate reparation, and that this article reflects a customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility. 219 162. Based on the violations of the Convention declared in the preceding chapters, the Court will proceed to analyze the claims submitted by the Commission and the representative, in light of the criteria established in its case law in relation to the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparation, in order to decide measures designed to redress the damage caused to the victims. 220 163. Given that the Court has established that the reparations should have a causal nexus with the facts of the case, the violations declared, the damage proved, and the measures requested to redress the respective damage, it must observe that these factors co-exist in order to rule appropriately and pursuant to law. 221 164. The Court has considered that it is necessary to grant different measures of reparation in order to repair the damage integrally; thus, in this case, in addition to pecuniary compensation, measures of rehabilitation and satisfaction, and guarantees of non-repetition may be particularly relevant to the harm and suffering caused. 222 A. Injured party 165. The Court reiterates that, under Article 63(1) of the Convention, anyone who has been declared a victim of the violation of any rights established in the Convention shall be considered an injured party. 223 Furthermore, the Court reiterates what it indicated in its preceding considerations as regards the victims named in the Merits Report (supra para. 28). Consequently, this Court considers that Melba del Carmen Suárez Peralta and Melba Peralta Mendoza are the “injured party” and, as victims of the violations declared in this Judgment, they will be considered beneficiaries of the reparations ordered by the Court. 218 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.” 219 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25, and Case of the Massacre of Santo Domingo, supra, para. 290. 220 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Reparations and costs, supra, paras. 25 to 27, and Case of García and family members, supra, para. 191. 221 Case of Ticona Estrada v. Bolivia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 110, and Case of the Massacre of Santo Domingo, supra, para. 291. 222 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre,” supra, para. 294, and Case of the Massacre of Santo Domingo, supra, para. 292. 223 Cf. Case of Bayarri v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 30, 2008. Series C No. 187, para. 126, and Case of Nadege Dorzema, supra, para. 244. 48