the Court has declared that the civil sentence of the journalists Moya Chacón and Parrales Chaves to pay damages violated the right to freedom of thought and expression recognized in Article 13 of the American Convention, it considers that it is not necessary to analyze the alleged violation of Article 8 of the American Convention. VIII REPARATIONS 94. Based on the provisions of Article 63)(1) of the American Convention, the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has caused harm entails the duty to make adequate reparation and that this provision reflects a customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility. 126 95. 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 re-establishment of the previous situation. If this is not feasible, as in most cases of human rights violations, the Court will determine measures to guarantee the violated rights and to redress the consequences of such violations. 127 Therefore, the Court has considered the need to grant diverse measures of reparation in order to redress the harm integrally; thus, in addition to pecuniary compensation, measures of restitution, rehabilitation and satisfaction together with guarantees of non-repetition have special relevance for the harm caused. 128 96. The Court has established that the reparations must have a causal nexus to the facts of the case, the violations declared, the harm proved, and the measures requested to redress the respective harm. Therefore, the Court must observe the concurrence of these elements to rule appropriately and pursuant to law. 129 97. Taking into account the violations of the American Convention declared in the preceding chapters in light of the criteria established in the Court’s case law in relation to the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparation, 130 the Court will now examine the claims presented by the Commission and the representatives, together with the corresponding arguments of the State, in order to establish measures aimed at redressing those violations. A. Injured party 98. The Court considers that, pursuant to Article 63(1) of the Convention, those who Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25, and Case of Pavez Pavez v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 4, 2022. Series C No. 449, para. 161. 126 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, supra, paras. 25 and 2, and Case of Pavez Pavez v. Chile, supra, para. 162. 127 Cf. Case of Las Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211, para. 226, and Case of Pavez Pavez v. Chile, supra, para. 162. 128 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada v. Bolivia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 110, and Case of Pavez Pavez v. Chile, supra, para. 163. 129 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, supra, paras. 25 to 27, and Case of Pavez Pavez v. Chile, supra, para. 164. 130 30