the duty to provide a proper reparation,281 and that this provision "reflects a customary law which is one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility."282 208. In the present case, the State requested –in a general manner- that “the application filed by the Inter-American Commission be deemed unfounded […], as well as the requests for reparations and costs, contained therein.” Nevertheless, in consideration of the violations of the American Convention declared in the prior sections, the Court will analyze the pretensions presented by the Commission and the representatives, as well as the positions of the State ad cautela, in light of the standards established in the jurisprudence of the Court in relation to the nature and scope of the obligation to repair, in order to provide the measures necessary to repair the harm caused to the victim. 209. The reparation of the damage caused by a violation of an international obligation requires, whenever possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists in restoring the situation that existed before the violation occurred. When this is not possible, as in the majority of the cases, among them the present one, it is the task of the Tribunal to order the adoption of a series of measures that, besides guaranteeing respect for the rights violated, will ensure that the damage resulting from the infractions is repaired, as well as establish payment of an indemnity as compensation for the harm caused. 283 Therefore, the Court has considered the need to provide for different remedies, in order to compensate the damages in a comprehensive manner, to which, in addition to financial compensation, measures of restitution, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition are especially relevant for the damage caused. 284 210. This Court has established that the reparations must have a causal connection with the facts of the case, the violations declared, the harm proven, as well as with the measures requested to repair the damage. Therefore, the Court must observe this in order to rule properly and pursuant to the law. 285 A. Injured Party 211. The Court reiterates that it considers an injured party, in the terms of Article 63(1) of the American Convention, a person declared a victim of the violation of the was violated. It shall also, if appropriate, order reparation for the consequences of the measure or situation that constituted the breach of such rights and the payment of just compensation to the injured party. " 281 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25; Case of Chocrón Chocrón, supra note 13, para. 143, and Case of Mejía Idrovo, supra note 15, para. 126.. 282 Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al) V. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 26, 2001. Series C No. 77, para. 62; Case of Salvador Chiriboga V. Ecuador, para. 32, and Case of Abrill Alosilla et al. V. Perú, para. 86. Series C No. 77, para. 62; Case of Chocrón Chocrón, supra note 13, para. 143, and Case of Mejía Idrovo, supra note 15, para. 126. 283 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Reparations and Costs, supra note 281, para. 26; Case of Chocrón Chocrón, supra note 13, para. 145, and Case of Mejía Idrovo, supra note 15, para. 128. 284 Cf. Case of “Mapiripán Massacre” V. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, supra note 20, para. 294; Case of “Dos Erres Massacre” V. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211, para. 226, and Case of Chocrón Chocrón, supra note 13, para. 145. 285 Cf. Case of Baldeón García V. Perú. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 183; Case of Chocrón Chocrón, supra note 13, para. 146, and Case of Mejía Idrovo, supra note 15, para. 129. 78