82 XI REPARATIONS (Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention) 243. Pursuant to the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention,339 the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has caused harm entails the obligation to redress this adequately, and that this provision reflects a customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility.340 In the instant case, the Court has considered the need to grant different measures of reparation in order to ensure the violated right and to redress the harm fully. 244. It should also be indicated that the Court has established that reparations should have a causal nexus to the facts of the case, the violations declared, the harm proved, and the measures requested to repair the respective harm. Accordingly, the Court must observe this concurrence in order to rule appropriately and in accordance with the law.341 245. Based on the considerations on the merits and on the violations of the American Convention declared in Chapters VIII, IX and X, the Court will proceed to examine the claims presented by the Commission and the representative, as well as the arguments of the State, in light of the criteria established in its case law concerning the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparation, in order to establish measures aimed at redressing the harm caused to the victims.342 A. Injured party 246. The Court reiterates that, under Article 63(1) of the Convention, the injured party is considered to be the persons declared a victim of the violation of any right recognized in the Convention. Therefore, the Court considers that the following are the “injured party”: María Isabel Veliz Franco, Rosa Elvira Franco Sandoval, Leonel Enrique Veliz Franco, José Roberto Franco, Cruz Elvira Sandoval Polanco and Roberto Franco Pérez and, in their capacity as victims of the violations that have been declared in Chapters VIII, IX and X, as applicable, they will be considered beneficiaries of the reparations ordered by the Court. B. Obligation to investigate the facts and identify and punish, as appropriate, those responsible B.1) Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 247. The Inter-American Commission asked that the State be ordered to “[c]omplete a timely, immediate, serious and impartial investigation to solve the murder of María Isabel Veliz Franco and to identify, prosecute and punish, as appropriate, those responsible.” 248. Meanwhile, the representative, like the Commission, asked that the State be ordered to investigate the events that occurred to the child, María Isabel Veliz Franco. To this end, it indicated that “the State should remove all obstacles de jure or de facto that prevent the 339 Article 63(1) of the Convention stipulates that: “[i]f the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by this Convention, the Court shall rule that the injured party be ensured the enjoyment of his right or freedom that was violated. It shall also rule, if appropriate, that the consequences of the measure or situation that constituted the breach of such right or freedom be remedied and that fair compensation be paid to the injured party.” 340 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25, and Case of Liakat Ali Alibux, supra, para. 137. 341 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 Liakat Ali Alibux, supra, para. 139. 342 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Reparations and costs, supra, paras. 25 to 27, and Case of Liakat Ali Alibux, supra, para. 138.