State, in a brief submitted to the Commission in February 2014, merely indicated that the judicial archives contained no record of the filing of any civil action in relation to the facts of the case.148 154. The Court notes that, regarding the claims for compensation filed by Messrs. López Ortiz and Ascázubi Albán, the Commission merely mentioned the claims without substantiating them with a specific description of the facts, and neither did the presumed victims’ representative. Taking all the foregoing into account, the Court does not have sufficient supporting evidence to establish the supposed state responsibility for possible violations of the rights established in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention alleged by the Commission. VIII REPARATIONS (Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention149) 155. Based on the provisions 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 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. 150 The Court has also established that the reparations should have a causal nexus to the facts of the case, the violations that have been declared, the harm proved, and the measures requested to redress the respective harm.151 Therefore, the Court must analyze the concurrence of these factors to rule appropriately and in keeping with law. 156. Accordingly, based on the preceding considerations on the merits and the violations of the Convention declared in this judgment, the Court will now examine the claims of the Commission and the victims, together with the observations of the State, in light of the criteria established in its case law concerning the nature and scope of the obligation to provide reparation, in order to establish the measures addressed at redressing the harm caused. 152 A. Injured party 157. The Court reiterates that, pursuant to Article 63(1) of the American Convention, anyone who has been declared a victim of the violation of any right recognized therein is considered an injured party. Therefore, the Court considers that Jorge Humberto Villarroel Merino, Mario Romel Cevallos Moreno, Jorge Enrique Coloma Gaibor, Fernando Marcelo López Ortiz, Leoncio Amílcar Ascázubi Albán and Alfonso Patricio Vinueza Pánchez are the injured party and, as victims of the violations declared in this judgment, they will be considered beneficiaries of the reparations ordered by the Court. Consequently, the Court will not rule on the requests relating to the victims’ spouses and children, because they are not victims in this case. B. Measures of satisfaction a) Publication of the judgment Cf. Communication 16363 of the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic of Ecuador of February 19, 2014 (evidence file, fs. 164 to 175). 148 149 Article 63(1) of the American Convention. Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, paras. 24 and 25, and Case of Grijalva Bueno v. Ecuador, para. 163. 150 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 110, and Case of Grijalva Bueno v. Ecuador, supra, para. 163. 151 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, supra, paras. 25 and 26, and Case of Moya Solís v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 3, 2021. Series C No. 425, para. 113. 152 39