-26in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, to the detriment of María Laura Órdenes Guerra, Ariel Luis Antonio Alcayaga Órdenes, Marta Elizabeth Alcayaga Órdenes, Augusto Oscar Amador Alcayaga Órdenes, Gloria Laura Astris Alcayaga Órdenes and María Laura Elena Alcayaga Órdenes; of Lucía Morales Compagnon, Jorge Roberto Osorio Morales, Carolina Andrea Osorio Morales, Lucía Odette Osorio Morales and María Teresa Osorio Morales; of Alina María Barraza Codoceo, Eduardo Patricio Cortés Barraza, Marcia Alejandra Cortés Barraza, Patricia Auristela Cortés Barraza, Nora Isabel Cortés Barraza and Hernán Alejandro Cortés Barraza; of Mario Melo Acuña, Ilia María Prádenas Pérez and Carlos Gustavo Melo Prádenas; of Pamela Adriana Vivanco Medina; of Elena Alejandrina Gómez Vargas and Katia Ximena Espejo Gómez; and of Magdalena Mercedes Navarrete Faraldo, Jorge Alberto Reyes Navarrete, Patricio Hernán Reyes Navarrete and Víctor Eduardo Reyes Navarrete. VII REPARATIONS (APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 63(1) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION75) 103. 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 produced harm entails the obligation 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.76 104. Reparations must have a causal nexus with the facts of the case, the violations declared, the damage proven, and the measures requested to redress the respective harm. Consequently, the Court must analyze the concurrence of these factors in order to rule appropriately and according to the law.77 105. Furthermore, reparation for the harm caused by the breach of an international obligation requires, whenever possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists of reestablishing the situation prior to the violation. If this is not feasible, as occurs in the majority of cases of human rights violations, the Court may order measures to protect the rights that have been violated and repair the harm caused.78 106. Considering the violations declared in the preceding chapter, together with the State’s acknowledgement of its obligation to fully redress the victims in this case, the Court will proceed to order the appropriate reparation measures, taking into account the claims of the Commission and the representative and the observations and arguments of the State, based on the criteria established in its case law in relation to the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparation. A. Injured party 107. Pursuant to Article 63(1) of the Convention, the Court considers as “injured party” the victims declared in the instant case (supra para. 102). Article 63(1) of the American Convention establishes that: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by this Convention, the Court shall rule that the injured party be ensured the enjoyment of his right or freedom that was violated. It shall also rule, if appropriate, that the consequences of the measure or situation that constituted the breach of such right or freedom be remedied and that fair compensation be paid to the injured party.” 75 Regarding the obligation to make reparation and its scope, see Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, paras. 25 to 27; and Case of López Soto et al. v. Venezuela, para. 268. 76 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 López Soto et al. v. Venezuela, para. 270. 77 78 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, para. 26, and Case of López Soto et al. v. Venezuela, para. 269.