this instrument, to the detriment of Nilda del Valle Maldonado de Gutiérrez, Jorge Gabriel Gutiérrez, Omar David Gutiérrez, Marilin Verónica Gutiérrez, Francisco Gutiérrez and Nilda Gutiérrez. IX REPARATIONS (Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention) 147. Based on the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention, 259 the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has caused harm entails the duty to repair it adequately, 260 and that this provision reflects a customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility. 261 148. Based on the Agreement reached by the parties, which the Court has previously assessed pursuant to Articles 62 to 64 of the Rules of Procedure (supra para. 21), the Court will analyze the measures agreed on in order to determine their scope and methods of implementation. Also, based on its considerations on the merits and the violations of the American Convention declared in the preceding chapters, the Court will proceed to examine the claims presented by the Commission and the representatives regarding which a dispute subsists (supra para. 25). All this 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 the measures designed to make integral reparation for the harm caused to the victims 262. 149. The Court has established that reparations must have a causal nexus to the facts of the case, the violations that have been declared, and the harm proved, as well as the measures requested to redress the respective harm. Hence, the Court must observe this concurrence in order to rule appropriately and in accordance with the law. 263 The Court will determine measures to guarantee the violated rights, to repair the consequences produced by the violations, and to establish compensation for the harm caused. A. Injured party 150. The Court reiterates that, under Article 63(1) of the Convention, anyone who has been declared a victim of the violation of any right recognized in the Convention is considered an injured party. 264 Therefore, the Court considers Jorge Omar Gutiérrez, and also Nilda del Valle Maldonado de Gutiérrez (wife of Jorge Omar Gutiérrez), Jorge Gabriel Gutiérrez, Omar David Gutiérrez and Marilin Verónica Gutiérrez (children of Jorge Omar 259 Article 63(1) of the Convention establishes 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.” 260 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25, and Case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 28, 2013. Series C No. 268, para. 243. 261 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Reparations and costs, supra, para. 25, and Case of Luna López, supra, para. 213. 262 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Reparations and costs, supra, paras. 25 to 27, and Case of Luna López, supra, para. 214. 263 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada et al., supra, para. 110, and Case of Luna López, supra, para. 215. 264 Cf. Case of the La Rochela Massacre, supra, para. 233, and Case of Luna López, supra, para. 216. 53