110 this case, the Tribunal has established that the State violated the human rights of Claudia Ivette González, Esmeralda Herrera Monreal and Laura Berenice Ramos Monárrez, and of their next of kin identified in paragraph 9 supra; they are therefore considered “injured parties” and beneficiaries of the reparations ordered in this chapter. 2. Alleged “double reparation” of the measures requested by the representatives 449. The State indicated that the reparations requested by the representatives “are excessive, repetitive and constitute a request for double reparation, because many of them refer to the same violations.” It added that “determining and granting these measures of reparation separately would involve a disproportionate burden for the State, because they would exceed the damage caused.” The State indicated that these reparations “cannot refer to the same violation” and “should take into consideration the assistance [medical, financial (payment in kind), psychological and legal] provided.” 450. The Court recalls that the concept of “integral reparation” (restitutio in integrum) entails the re-establishment of the previous situation and the elimination of the effects produced by the violation, as well as the payment of compensation for the damage caused. However, bearing in mind the context of structural discrimination in which the facts of this case occurred, which was acknowledged by the State (supra paras. 129 and 152), the reparations must be designed to change this situation, so that their effect is not only of restitution, but also of rectification. In this regard, reestablishment of the same structural context of violence and discrimination is not acceptable. Similarly, the Tribunal recalls that the nature and amount of the reparations ordered depend on the characteristics of the violation and on the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused. Reparations should not make the victims or their next of kin either richer or poorer and they should be directly proportionate to the violations that have been declared. One or more measures can repair a specific damage, without this being considered double reparation. 451. In accordance with the foregoing, the Court will assess the measures of reparation requested by the Commission and the representatives to ensure that they: (i) refer directly to the violations declared by the Tribunal; (ii) repair the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage proportionately; (iii) do not make the beneficiaries richer or poorer; (iv) restore the victims to their situation prior to the violation insofar as possible, to the extent that this does not interfere with the obligation not to discriminate; (v) are designed to identify and eliminate the factors that cause discrimination; (vi) are adopted from a gender perspective, bearing in mind the different impact that violence has on men and on women, and (vii) take into account all the juridical acts and actions in the case file which, according to the State, tend to repair the damage caused. 3. Obligation to investigate the facts and identify, prosecute and, if appropriate, punish those responsible for the violations