304. Based on the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention, 373 the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has caused harm entails the obligation to provide adequate reparation, 374 and that this provision reflects a customary norm that is one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility. 375 305. Based on the violations of the American Convention and of the Convention against Torture declared in the preceding chapters, the Court will now examine the claims submitted by the Commission and the representatives, as well as the State's arguments, in light of the criteria established in the Court’s case law as regards the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparation, in order to establish measures of reparation designed to repair the damage caused to the victims. 376 306. This Court has established that reparations must have a causal nexus with 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 the co-existence of these factors in order to rule appropriately and in accordance with the law. 377 307. The reparation of the damage caused by a violation of an international obligation requires, wherever possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists of reestablishing the previous situation. Where this is not feasible, as in most cases involving human rights violations, the Court will determine measures to guarantee the infringed rights and to repair the consequences of the violations. 378 Hence, the Court has considered the need to grant different measures of reparation in order to redress the damage caused integrally; accordingly, in addition to pecuniary compensation, measures of restitution and satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition have special relevance to the damage caused. 379 A. Injured party 308. The Court considers that, in terms of Article 63(1) of the Convention, the injured party is the person declared a victim of the violation of any right recognized in this instrument. Therefore, the Court considers César Alberto Mendoza, Claudia David Núñez, Lucas Matías Mendoza, Saúl Cristian Roldán Cajal and Ricardo David Videla Fernández to be the “injured party,” as well as those persons referred to in paragraphs 274, 280, 283, 286 and 288 of this Judgment, and they will be considered beneficiaries of the reparations ordered by the Court, in their capacity as victims of the violations declared herein. 373 Article 63(1) of the Convention stipulates 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.” 374 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 Massacre of Santo Domingo v. Colombia, para. 290. 375 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 Massacre of Santo Domingo v. Colombia, para. 290. 376 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, paras. 25 to 27, and Case of the Massacre of Santo Domingo v. Colombia, para. 293. 377 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 Massacre of Santo Domingo v. Colombia, para. 291. 378 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, para. 26, and Case of the Massacre of Santo Domingo v. Colombia, para. 292. 379 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 88, paras. 79 to 81, and Case of the Massacre of Santo Domingo v. Colombia, para. 292. 97