146. This Court has established that the reparations must have a causal connection with the facts of the case, the violations declared, the harm proved, and the measures requested to repair the damage. Therefore, the Court must observe this concurrence in order to rule appropriately and in keeping with the law.113 147. Taking into account the violations of the American Convention declared in this Judgment, the Court will proceed to analyze the claims presented by the Commission and by the representatives, as well as the arguments of the State, in light of the criteria established in the Court’s case law concerning the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparation, in order to establish the measures aimed at repairing the harm caused to the victims. A. Injured Party 148. In the terms of Article 63(1) of the American Convention, The Court considers the injured party to be the person declared a victim of the violation of any right established therein. 114 The injured parties in this case are Mr. Fornerón and his daughter who, as victims of the violations declared in this Judgment, will be considered beneficiaries of the reparations that the Court orders. B. Measures of integral reparation: restitution, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition 149. International case law and, in particular, that of the Court, has established repeatedly that the judgment can constitute per se a form of reparation.115 Nevertheless, considering the circumstances of the case and the adverse effects on the victims as a result of the violations of the American Convention declared against them, the Court finds it pertinent to determine the following measures of reparation. 1. Measure of restitution 1.1 Restitution of ties between Mr. Fornerón and his daughter 150. The Inter-American Commission asked the Court to order the State to adopt, in the short term, all necessary measures to make integral reparation for the human rights violations suffered by Mr. Fornerón and his daughter, with the appropriate assistance and taking into consideration the best interests of the child. In particular, it requested that, among other measures, Argentina take urgently the necessary steps to create the conditions to establish the relationship between Mr. Fornerón and his daughter. It indicated that the most important measure of reparation was that the State guarantee the child and Mr. Fornerón a relationship in accordance with their actual needs and the best interests of the child, and that the visiting regime was a first step. 151. Additionally, the Commission indicated that the State must follow various guidelines 113 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 González Medina and family v. Dominican Republic, supra note 10, para. 278. 114 Cf. Case of the La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 233, and Case of González Medina and family v. Dominican Republic, supra note 10, para. 281. 115 Cf. Case of El Amparo v. Venezuela. Reparations and costs. Judgment of September 14, 1996. Series C No. 28, para. 35, and Case of González Medina and family v. Dominican Republic, supra note 16, para. 315. 42