IX REPARATIONS 116. On the basis of Article 63(1) of the Convention, the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has caused harm entails the duty to make adequate reparations and that this provision reflects the customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law of State responsibility. 139 117. Reparation for the damages caused by the infringement of an international obligations requires, to the extent possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists in the restoration of the prior situation. If this is not possible, as occurs in most cases of human rights violations, the Court will determine the measures to guarantee the rights violated and redress the consequences produced by the infringements. 140 The Court has, therefore, found it necessary to grant diverse measures of reparation in order to redress the harm comprehensively so that, in addition to the pecuniary compensations, the measures of restitution, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of nonrepetition have special relevance for the harm caused. 141 118. The Court has held that the reparations must have a causal link with the facts of the case, the violations declared, the proven harm, as well as the measures requested to repair the resulting harm. The Court, therefore, must “observe such coincidence in order to adjudge and declare according to law.” 142 119. Bearing in mind the violations to the Convention declared in the preceding chapters and in light of the criteria set in the Court’s case law concerning the nature and scope of the obligations to make reparation, 143 the Court will analyze the claims presented by the Commission and by the representatives as well as the arguments of the State with the objecto f ordering the measures that would redress those violations. A. Injured party 120. The Court considers an injured party to be, in the terms of Article 63(1) of the Convention, anyone who has been declared a victim of a violation of a right recognized in the Convention. Therefore, the Court considers as an “injured party” the persons listed in Annex I of this judgment, 144 who, as victims of the violations declared in Chapter VIII will be the beneficiaries of the reparations that the Court orders. The Court reiterates that, according to the representatives, more than 800 victims have died to date. In addition, also according to the representatives, the age of most of the victims ranges between 80 and 90 years. The Court will bear this in mind in determining reparations and when they are be complied with by the State, in view the increased protection that should be granted to older persons. Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25 and Case of Digna Ochoa and family members v. Mexico, supra, para. 150. 140 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs, supra, paras. 25 and 2 and Case of Digna Ochoa and family members v. Mexico, supra, para. 151. 141 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 Digna Ochoa and family members v. Mexico, supra, para. 151. 142 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 Digna Ochoa and family members. Mexico, supra, para. 152. 143 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs, supra, paras. 25 to 27 and Case of Digna Ochoa and family members v. Mexico, supra, para. 153. 144 Notwithstanding the additional and differentiated identifications that were made in the context of the totality of the victims, who are individualized in Annexes II and III of this judgment (see infra paras. 125 and 141). 139 32