resources and with urgent needs, it asks that the judgment delivered in this case should take into account the context of Bolivia.” 240. This Court has established that reparations must have a causal nexus with the facts of the case, the violations declared, the harm proved, and the measures requested to redress the respective harm. Therefore, the Court must take into account these factors in order to rule appropriately and in keeping with the law.275 241. The reparation of the harm caused by the violation of an international obligation requires, whenever possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists in re-establishment of the previous situation. If this is not feasible, as in most cases of human rights violations, the Court will decide measures to ensure the rights that have been violated and to make reparation for the consequences of the violations.276 Consequently, the Court has found it necessary to award different measures of reparation in order to redress the harm integrally; thus, in addition to pecuniary compensation, measures of restitution and satisfaction, and guarantees of nonrepetition have special relevance for the harm caused. 277 242. Based on the violations of the Convention declared in the preceding chapters, the Court will proceed to analyze the claims presented by the representatives and the Commission, in light of the criteria established in its case law on the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparation, in order to order measures aimed at repairing the harm caused to the victims. 278 A. Injured party 243. The Court finds that, according to Article 63(1) of the Convention, the injured party is considered to be anyone declared a victim of the violation of any right recognized in the Convention. The State did not submit arguments regarding the beneficiaries of the reparations. The Court considers the members of the Pacheco Tineo family to be the “injured party,” namely: Rumaldo Juan Pacheco Osco, Fredesvinda Tineo Godos and their children Juana Guadalupe, Frida Edith and Juan Ricardo Pacheco Tineo, and, as victims of the violations declared in this Judgment, they will be considered beneficiaries of the reparations ordered by the Court. B. Obligation to investigate Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 244. The Commission recommended that the State “implement administrative, disciplinary or other measures to deal with acts or omissions of the State officials who took part in the human rights violations that have been declared.” 245. The representatives indicated that it was essential to establish the truth of the facts and the corresponding responsibilities in order to reinforce the prohibition of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, and that failure to observe this prohibition would have the real consequences that it merited. If appropriate, it asked the Court to order the State of Bolivia to “proceed to conduct effective investigations into the person responsible for the serious wrongful acts, as well as, in the same context, to identify the immigration and police agents involved in 275 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 Luna López, para. 214 276 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, para. 26, and Case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador, para. 244 277 Cf. Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 294, and Case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador, para. 244. See also, Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, para. 26. 278 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, Reparations and costs. paras. 25 to 27, and Case of García and family members v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 29, 2012. Series C No. 258, para. 191. 74