different measures of reparation in order to provide comprehensive redress for the harm; thus, in addition to pecuniary compensation, the measures of restitution, rehabilitation and satisfaction, as well as guarantees of non-repetition, are particularly relevant to the harm caused.123 112. This Court has established that reparations must have a causal nexus with the facts of the case, the declared violations, the proven damage, as well as the measures requested to repair the damage. Therefore, the Court must observe such congruence in order to adjudge and declare according to law.124 113. In view of the violations of the American Convention declared in the preceding chapter, and in light of the standards established in the Court’s case law on the nature and scope of the obligation to redress,125 the Court will examine the claims submitted by the Commission and the representatives, as well as the State’s arguments, and in the following paragraphs order measures of reparation for these violations. A. Injured party 114. The Court, under the terms of article 63(1) of the Convention, holds as an injured party anyone who has been declared the victim of violation of a right recognized therein. The Court therefore holds Carlos Julio Aguinaga Aillón as an “injured party” and a victim of the violations declared in chapter VII of this judgment, and he will be the beneficiary of reparations ordered by this Court. B. Measures of restitution 115. The Commission held that the State should “[r]einstate Carlos Julio Aguinaga Aillón to a position similar to that previously held, with the same remuneration, social benefits and rank comparable to those he would be entitled to today had he not been removed, for the period of time remaining to his mandate.” It also said that if for wellfounded reasons reinstatement was not possible, the State should “pay alternative compensation.” 116. The representatives said that the institution from which Mr. Aguinaga Aillón had been dismissed ceased to exist with the enactment of the 2008 Constitution, and therefore, reinstatement to his position as a member of the TSE would not be a valid option. They asked for monetary damages instead. 117. The State argued in its final written pleadings that “there was no violation of international standards for which State responsibility had been incurred,” and therefore, there were no grounds for granting the measure requested by Mr. Aguinaga. 118. The Court ruled in the instant case that Mr. Aguinaga Aillón had been dismissed as the result of a decision that violated the right to judicial guarantees, judicial independence, the right to participate in government, the right to work, and the right to Cf. Case of the 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 Nissen Pessolani v. Paraguay, supra, para. 106. 123 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 Nissen Pessolani v. Paraguay, supra, para. 107. 124 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs, supra, paras. 25 to 27, Case of Deras García et al. v. Honduras, supra, para. 94, and Case of Nissen Pessolani v. Paraguay, supra, para. 108. 125 35