VIII REPARATIONS170 134. Based on the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention, the Court has held that any violation of an international obligation that has caused harm entails the 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.171 135. Reparation for the harm caused by the breach of an international obligation requires, whenever possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists of reestablishing the situation prior to the violation. If this is not feasible, as occurs in the majority of cases of human rights violations, the Court may order measures to protect the rights that have been violated and repair the harm caused.172 Accordingly, the Court has considered the need to provide different types of reparation in order to fully redress the damage; thus, in addition to compensation for pecuniary damages, other types of measures such as satisfaction, restitution, rehabilitation, and guarantees of non-repetition have special relevance due to the severity of the harm caused.173 136. Additionally, The Court has also established that reparations must have a causal nexus with the facts of the case, the violations declared, the damage proven, and the measures requested to redress the respective harm. Consequently, the Court must analyze the concurrence of these factors in order to rule appropriately and according to the law.174 137. Consequently, in accordance with the considerations set forth on the merits and the violations declared in this judgment, the Court will now examine the claims presented by the Commission, as well as the State's observations, in light of the criteria established in its case law concerning the nature and scope of the obligation to make full reparation, for the purpose of ordering measures to redress the harm caused to the victim.175 A. Injured Party 138. Pursuant to Article 63(1) of the American Convention, the Court reiterates that it considers an injured party to be anyone who has been declared a victim of the violation of any right recognized therein. Therefore, this Court considers injured parties to be Fredy Núñez Naranjo and the following individuals, members of his household: Sixto Núñez Naranjo (father), María Gregoria Naranjo (mother), Marcia Núñez Naranjo (sister) and Silvia Núñez Naranjo (sister). B. Obligation to investigate in order to determine individual responsibilities 139. The Commission requested that the State be ordered to "carry out the domestic procedures Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention. 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 Olivera Fuentes v. Peru,, supra, para. 130. 172 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, supra, para. 24, and Case of Olivera Fuentes v. Peru. Preliminary objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 4, 2023. Series C No. 484, para. 131. 173 Cf. Case of the Las Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala,, supra, para. 226, and Case of Olivera Fuentes v. Peru,, supra, para. 131. 174 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia, supra, para. 110, and Case of Olivera Fuentes v. Peru,, supra, para. 132. 175 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, supra, paras. 25 and 26, and Case of Olivera Fuentes v. Peru, supra, para. 133. 170 171 -38-