-40provide adequate reparation.152 In addition, the Court has stated that the 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. The Court must, thus, analyze such concurrence of these factors in order to rule appropriately and in accordance with the law.153 171. Reparation for the harm caused by the breach of an international obligation requires, whenever possible, full restitution that consists in reestablishing the situation prior to the violation. If this is not feasible, the Court may order measures to protect the rights infringed and repair the harm caused by the violations.154 172. Consequently and regardless of the form of reparations that subsequently might be agreed to by the State and the victims regarding the violations of the American Convention declared in this Judgment, the Court will now proceed to order the measures to repair the harm caused to the victims. To do so, it will examine the claims of the Commission and of the representatives, as well as the arguments of the State in light of the criteria found in the Court’s case law concerning the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparation.155 A. Injured Party 173. The Court reiterates that, pursuant to Article 63(1) of the American Convention, the injured party is anyone who has been declared the victim of any right recognized therein. This Court, thus, considers Zulema Tarazona Arrieta, Norma Pérez Chávez, Luis Alberto Bejarano Laura, Víctor Tarazona Hinostroza, Lucila Arrieta Bellena, Santiago Pérez Vera and Nieves Emigdia Chávez Rojas, as victims of the violations declared in Chapter VIII, to be beneficiaries of the reparations ordered by the Court. B. Obligation to investigate 174. The Commission, in its final written observations, indicated that “there was a lack in the present case of a serious investigation during the criminal or disciplinary proceedings into whether other persons were responsible” and, therefore, it considered that “a component of an investigation on responsibilities, other than those of Mr. Evangelista Pinedo, is necessary in order to comply with the standard of full reparation.” The representatives asked that an order be given to ”begin the appropriate investigations of the persons who failed in their duty to effectively control their troops, as well as of those who were responsible for the intervention of the military jurisdiction.” With respect to Sgt. Evangelista Pinedo serving the full six-year prison sentence, they requested that ”there be a judicial review of the benefit granted to him.” The State maintained that the incident “had been fully remedied” by the conviction of the perpetrator of the incident and the full payment of compensation. It also indicated that “the domestic proceedings concluded with the judgment of July 23, 2008, which was confirmed on November 4, 2008.” Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25 and Case of Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 28, 2014. Series C No. 283, para. 243. 152 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs, para. 110 and Case of Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala, para. 245. 153 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs, para. 26 and Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, Members and Activist of the Indigenous Mapuche People) v. Chile, para. 414. 154 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs, paras. 25 to 27 and Case of the Afrodescendant Communities displaced from the Cararica River Basin (Operation Genesis) v. Colombia, para. 413. 155