justified, to the extent that it took place as a direct consequence of the discrimination he experienced during competitive hiring process 01-02. His dismissal therefore constituted a violation of his right to keep his job. 82. In view of the foregoing, and in accordance with the state’s acknowledgment of responsibility, this Court concludes that the discrimination experienced by Mr. Guevara with regard to his ability to remain at his job amounted to a violation of the right to work and the right to equal protection, as well as the state's failure to comply with its duty to prohibit discrimination. Consequently, the state is responsible for the violation of articles 26 and 24 of the American Convention, read in conjunction with article 1(1), to the detriment of Mr. Luis Fernando Guevara Díaz. VIII REPARATIONS 83. Pursuant to the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention, the Court has held that every violation of an international obligation which results in harm creates a duty to make adequate reparation, and that this provision reflects a customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility.104 This Court has also established that reparations must have a causal nexus with the facts of the case, the alleged violations, the proven damages, as well as the measures requested to repair the resulting damages. Therefore, the Court must observe such coincidence in order to adjudge and declare according to law.105 84. Consequently, without detriment to any form of reparation agreed upon previously between the state and the victims, and based on its considerations on the merits and the violations of the Convention declared in this judgment and on the state’s acknowledgment of responsibility, the Court will proceed to examine the claims presented by the Commission and the victims’ representative, together with the corresponding observations of the state’s acknowledgment of responsibility, in light of the criteria established in its case law on the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparation, in order to establish measures to redress the harm caused to the victims.106 A. Injured party 85. Pursuant to Article 63(1) of the Convention, the Court considers that anyone who has been declared a victim of the violation of any right recognized therein is an injured party. Therefore, the Court considers that Luis Fernando Guevara Díaz is the “injured party” and, as the victim of the violations declared in Chapter VII, he will be considered the beneficiary of the reparations that the Court orders. B. Measure of restitution B.1. Requests of the Commission and the parties Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, paras. 24 and 25; and Case of Pavez Pavez v. Chile, supra, para. 161. 104 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 Pavez Pavez v. Chile, supra, para. 163. 105 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs, supra, paras. 25 and 26; and Case of Palacio Urrutia et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 165. 106 27