IX REPARATIONS 130. Based on the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention, the Court has held that any violation of an international obligation that has caused harm entails the duty to make adequate reparation, and that this provision reflects a customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility. 200 131. Reparation for the harm caused by the breach of an international obligation requires, whenever possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists of reestablishing the situation prior to the violation. If this is not feasible, as occurs in the majority of cases of human rights violations, the Court may order measures to protect the rights that have been violated and repair the harm caused. 201 Accordingly, the Court has considered the need to provide different types of reparation in order to fully redress the damage; thus, in addition to pecuniary compensation, other types of measures such as satisfaction, restitution, rehabilitation, and guarantees of non-repetition have special relevance due to the severity of the harm caused. 202 132. 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. 203 133. Therefore, taking into account the violations declared in the previous chapter, and in light of the criteria established in its case law regarding the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparation, 204 the Court will now examine the claims presented by the Commission and the representatives, as well as the arguments of the State, for the purpose of ordering measures to redress the harm caused to the victim. A. Injured party 134. Pursuant to Article 63(1) of the Convention, the Court reiterates that it considers as injured party anyone who has been declared a victim of the violation of any right recognized therein. Therefore, this Court considers as “injured party” Mr. Crissthian Manuel Olivera Fuentes who, as the victim of the violations declared in Chapter VIII of Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25, and Case of Nissen Pessolani v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2022. Series C No. 477, para. 105. 201 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, supra, paras. 25 and 2, and Case Nissen Pessolani v. Paraguay, supra, para. 106. 202 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 Nissen Pessolani v. Paraguay, supra, para. 92. 203 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 Nissen Pessolani v. Paraguay, supra, para. 107. 204 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, supra, paras. 25 to 27, and Case of Nissen Pessolani v. Paraguay, supra, para. 108. 200 48