responsible for the negligence of a private individual.” Therefore, it asked the Court to reject this measure of reparation. 256. Regarding the request to return the presumed victims’ documentation, the State reiterated that it was unable to do this, because there was no authentic evidence that this documentation had been seized by the Bolivian authorities. In this regard, it added that, even though the belongings of the Pacheco Tineo family had been searched, the family had subsequently been handed over to the Peruvian immigration authorities together with all their belonging and luggage. Therefore, it indicated that the responsibility for the said belonging could not be attributed to the Bolivia State. Considerations of the Court 257. Regarding the representatives’ requests, the Court considers that the Judgment is per se a form of reparation and that no factual or legal decisions have been made on the alleged retention of documents, so that it was not in order to admit the request. C.2. Rehabilitation Arguments of the parties 258. The representatives indicated that, owing to the physical and psychological problems suffered by the victims, it was necessary to order measures of rehabilitation that took into account the expectations of the victims and their status as aliens. They added that the members of the Pacheco Tineo family, following their agreement, should receive medical and psychological care in their country of residence, Chile, in order to comply with the object and purpose of rehabilitation. To this end, they indicated that the State of Bolivia should provide each member of the Pacheco Tineo family with a sum of money to cover the costs of specialized medical and psychological care, and related expenses, in their place of residence. In this regard, the representatives estimated that the sum that should be paid, once, to each member of the family was US$20,000.00 for the items mentioned. 259. In this regard, the State recognized the need for the members of the Pacheco Tineo family to receive medical and psychological care. However, it recalled that the supposed nonpecuniary damage, as well as the psychological and emotional harm to the members of the Pacheco Tineo family, originated from the different arrests and imprisonment they had suffered in their country of origin (Peru) and that the Bolivian State could not be held responsible for those facts. Therefore, the State asked the Court not to order these measures of reparation. Considerations of the Court 260. On this point, the Court considers that the psychological consequences of the facts on the Pacheco Tineo family that were mentioned by the representatives refer, to a great extent, to harm caused as a result of human rights violations suffered in Peru, and it is not clear which of them refer specifically to the facts for which the Bolivian State was declared responsible in this case. In this regard, the Court recalls that it is the consistent case law of the Court 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 harm (supra paras. 240 to 242). Therefore, the Court finds that it is not appropriate to order the reparation requested because, in this specific case, the existence of a causal nexus between this presumed harm to the members of the Pacheco Tineo family and the State’s responsibility for the facts of this case has not been proved clearly. C.3. Measure of satisfaction: publication and dissemination of the Judgment 77