the obligation to provide adequate reparation 487 and that this provision reflects a customary law that is one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility. 488 319. The reparation of the damage caused by the violation of an international obligation requires, whenever possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists of the re-establishment 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 infringed and to repair the consequences of the violations. 489 Consequently, the Court has considered the need to award different measures of reparation in order to redress the damage comprehensively, so that, in addition to pecuniary compensation, measures of restitution and satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition have special relevance for the damage caused. 490 320. The Court has established that reparations must have a causal nexus to the facts of the case, the violations declared, the damage proved, and the measures requested to repair the respective damage. Therefore, the Court must observe that these requirements have been met in order to rule appropriately and in keeping with the law. 491 321. Based on the considerations on the merits and the violations of the American Convention declared in the preceding chapter, the Court will now analyze the claims arguments and recommendations presented by the Commission and the claims of the representatives, as well as the arguments of the State, in light of the criteria established in the Court’s case law regarding the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparation, 492 in order to establish measures designed to redress the damage caused to the victims. A) Injured party 322. The Court reiterates that, under Article 63(1) of the Convention, those persons who have been declared victims of the violation of a right recognized in the Convention are considered the injured party. Therefore, this Court considers as “injured party”: Gretel Artavia Murillo, Miguel Mejías Carballo, Andrea Bianchi Bruno, German Alberto Moreno Valencia, Ana Cristina Castillo León, Enrique Acuña Cartín, Ileana Henchoz Bolaños, Miguel Antonio Yamuni Zeledón, Claudia María Carro Maklouf, Víctor Hugo Sanabria León, Karen Espinoza Vindas, Héctor Jiménez Acuña, Maria del Socorro Calderón P., Joaquina Arroyo Fonseca, Giovanni Antonio Vega, Carlos E. Vargas Solórzano, Julieta González Ledezma and Oriester Rojas Carranza, who, as victims of the violations declared in Chapter VII, will be considered beneficiaries of the reparations ordered by the Court. 487 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25, and Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic, para. 238. 488 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, para. 25, and Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic, para. 238. 489 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, para. 25, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 4, 2012 Series C No. 250, para. 245. 490 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, para. 25, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, para. 248. 491 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 the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 25, 2012 Series C No. 252. 492 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, para. 25, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, para. 246.