IX REPARATIONS (Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention) 188. Based on the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention, 276 the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation which has caused harm entails the obligation to provide adequate reparation, 277 and that this provision reflects a customary norm that is one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility. 278 189. The reparation of the harm caused by the violation of an international obligation requires, whenever possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists in the reinstatement of the previous situation. If this is not possible, as in most cases of human rights violations, the Court will establish other measures to ensure the rights that have been infringed and to redress the harm caused by the violation. 279 Consequently, the Court has considered the need to award different measures of reparation in order to make full redress for the harm caused; hence, in addition to pecuniary compensation, measures of restitution and satisfaction, and guarantees of non-repetition are especially relevant to the harm caused. 280 190. This Court has established that reparations must have a causal nexus to the facts of the case, the violations declared, the harm established, and the measures requested to repair the respective harm. Therefore, the Court must observe this concurrence in order to rule appropriately and in accordance with the law. 281 191. Taking into consideration the agreement on reparations reached between the parties to this case, which has previously been endorsed by the Court (supra para. 23), the Court must now determine the scope and method of implementation of the agreed reparations, in light of the criteria established in its case law, and in relation to the nature, object and purpose of the obligation to provide full reparation for the harm caused to the victims. 282 The Court will make this analysis based on the State’s partial acknowledgment of 276 Article 63(1) of the American Convention establishes that: “[i]f 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.” 277 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7 para. 25, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, supra, para. 302. 278 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and costs. Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, para. 40, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, supra, para. 302. 279 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, supra, para. 26, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, supra, para. 248. 280 Cf. Case of the Las Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, supra, para. 226, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, supra, para. 305. 281 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia, supra, para. 110, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, supra, para. 304. 282 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, supra, paras. 25 to 27, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, supra, para. 303. 66