64. This Court has also established that reparations must have a causal link with the facts of the case, the violations declared, the damages verified and the measures requested to repair the respective damages. Therefore, the Court shall adhere to that principle in order to rule appropriately and according to law.86 65. Reparation of the damage caused by a violation of an international obligation requires, wherever possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which implies restoring the previous situation.87 When this is not feasible, as in most cases involving human rights violations, the Court will decide on measures to guarantee the infringed rights and to offer redress for the consequences of the violations. Accordingly, the Court has considered the need to grant various measures of reparation, so as to provide full redress for the damage caused. Therefore, in addition to pecuniary compensation, the obligation to investigate, measures of restitution, rehabilitation and satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition are of special importance given the damage caused.88 66. Taking into consideration the friendly settlement agreement reached between the parties to redress the victims in this case (supra paras. 23 and 24), and previously endorsed by the Court, and considering the importance and magnitude of the violations acknowledged by the State, the Court will analyze the agreed measures in order to determine their scope and manner of implementation, in light of the criteria established in its case law and in relation to the nature, object and purpose of the obligation to provide comprehensive redress for the damage caused to the victims.89 A) Injured party and other beneficiaries of the friendly settlement agreement 67. The Court considers Messrs. Juan García Cruz and Santiago Sánchez Silvestre as the “injured party,” since they are named as the victims in the Commission’s Report on Merits, in accordance with Article 35(1) (b) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, 90 and declared as such in this Judgment, based on the agreement reached by the parties and the acknowledgment made by the State (supra paras. 12 and 22). Therefore, Messrs. García Cruz and Sánchez Silvestre shall be considered as beneficiaries of the reparations ordered by the Court.91 68. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Court notes that in section, “X. Other reparations awarded in good faith” under the friendly settlement agreement, the State agreed to award “in good faith” two measures to benefit the “daughter and wife of Santiago Sánchez Silvestre” (infra 86 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 Luna López v. Honduras, supra note 84, para. 215. 87 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs, supra note 84, para. 26. 88 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 88, paras. 79-81 and Case of the Constitutional Court (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 28, 2013. Series C No. 268, para. 244. 89 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Reparations and Costs, supra note 84, paras. 25 to 27 and Case of Luna López v. Honduras, supra note 84, para. 214. 90 In accordance with the provisions of Article 35 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure and consistent with its case law, the presumed victims should be established in the Report on Merits. Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 98; Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 24, 2012. Series C No. 251, paras. 29 and 37, and Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 21, 2013. Series C No. 261, paras. 27 and 165. 91 Cf. Case of Suarez Rosero v. Ecuador. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 20, 1999. Series C No. 44, para. 233 and Case of Luna López v. Honduras, supra note 84, para. 216. 21