by those violations. 184 Accordingly, the Court has considered the need to provide different types of reparation in order to fully redress the damage; therefore, in addition to pecuniary compensation, other measures such as satisfaction, restitution, rehabilitation, and guarantees of non-repetition have special relevance owing to the severity of the harm caused. 185 163. The Court has also established that 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. 186 164. Therefore, taking into account the considerations on the merits and the violations of the American Convention declared in this judgment, the Court will now examine the claims presented by the Commission and the representatives of the victim, as well as the corresponding observations of the State, in light of the criteria established in its case law concerning the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparation, for the purpose of ordering measures to redress the harm caused. 187 A. Injured party 165. Pursuant to Article 63(1) of the Convention, this Court considers as injured party anyone who has been declared a victim of the violation of any right recognized therein. Therefore, the Court considers as “injured party” Sandra Pavez Pavez, who, as the victim of the violations declared in Chapter VI, will be considered the beneficiary of the reparations ordered by the Court. B. Measures of satisfaction and rehabilitation B.1. Measures of satisfaction a) Publication of the judgment 166. The Commission recommended that the State implement appropriate measures of satisfaction; however, it did not refer specifically to these measures. 167. The representatives asked the Court to order the State to publish the judgment in a national newspaper with wide circulation and on the websites of the relevant State institutions, particularly the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Foreign Relations, requesting also that the State be required to make said publication available for one year. 168. As it has done in other cases, 188 the Court orders the State to publish, within six months of notification of this judgment, in a legible and appropriate font size: a) the official summary of this judgment prepared by the Court, once, in the Official Gazette; b) the official summary of this judgment prepared by the Court, once, in a national newspaper with wide circulation, and c) this judgment in its entirety, available for one year, on an official website of the State, in a manner accessible to the public from the home page of the website. The State shall immediately inform this Court once it has issued 184 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, supra, para. 24, and Case of Digna Ochoa and Family Members v. Mexico, supra, para. 151. 185 Cf. Case of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211, para. 226, and Case of Digna Ochoa and Family Members v. Mexico, supra, para. 151. 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 Digna Ochoa and Family Members v. Mexico, supra, para. 152. 186 187 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, supra, paras. 25 and 26, and Case of Former Employees of the Judiciary v. Guatemala, supra, para. 136. 188 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 88, para. 79, and Case of Digna Ochoa and Family Members v. Mexico, supra, para. 167. 42