67 255. Reparation of the harm caused by the violation of an international obligation requires, insofar as possible, full restitution, which consists in the restoration 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 rights that have been violated and to redress the consequences of those violations.240 Therefore, the Court has found it necessary to grant different measures of reparation in order to redress the harm integrally so that, in addition to pecuniary compensation, measures of restitution, rehabilitation, and satisfaction and guarantees of nonrepetition have special relevance for the harm caused.241 256. Therefore, and without detriment to any form of reparation agreed on later by the State and the victims, in consideration of the violations of the American Convention declared in this judgment, the Court will proceed to issue the measures addressed to repairing the damages caused. In this sense, it will take into consideration the claims presented by the Commission and the representatives, together with the arguments of the State, in light of the criteria established in the Court’s case-law concerning the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparation.242 A. Injured Party 257. Pursuant to Article 63(1) of the American Convention, this Court considers that anyone who has been declared a victim of the violation of any right recognized therein is an injured party. Therefore, this Court considers that the Garífuna Community of Triunfo de la Cruz and its members are the injured party, who as victims of the violations declared in this judgment, shall be considered beneficiaries of the reparations that the Court orders. B. Measures of restitution: demarcation and titling of lands 258. The Commission recommended to the State that it “[a]dopt, as soon as possible, the measures necessary to make the right to communal property and the possession of the Garífuna Community of Triunfo de la Cruz and its members effective with regard to their [traditional] territory.” Likewise, it indicated that “taking into consideration that the beach and sea are an essential part of the cultural and […] subsistence activities of the Garífuna Community of Triunfo de la Cruz, it is necessary that the State, upon complying with the measures of reparation related to the acknowledgment and titling that is still pending, abstain from excluding from all consideration the beach and marine portions regarding which the Community has provided evidence of its historical use.”243 The representatives requested that the Court order the State “[t]o hand over to the Indigenous Community of Triunfo de la Cruz of the Garífuna People, without cost, the lands claimed, including their [traditional] habitat or missing part of their [traditional] territory, to complete the Community’s territorial right over a total surface of 2.840 hectares, which implies the legal acknowledgment of the Community’s territory […], as per the [traditional] boundary.” The State did not present observations regarding this measure of reparation. Cfr. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs, para. 26, and Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras, para. 287. 240 Cfr. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs, para. 294, and Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras, para. 287. 241 Cfr. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs, paras. 25 to 27, and Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras, para. 289. 242 The Commission added that the Community’s rights regarding the beaches or marine strips “ha[ve] been a subject of constant debates” but that, even though “it can be complex, what the State is trying to do is exclude them a priori of all debate in matters of acknowledgment, titling, and demarcation.” 243