82 267. The Court has established that reparations must have a causal nexus with the facts of the case, the violations declared, the damage proven, as well as the measures requested to repair the respective harm. 327 268. In consideration of the violations of the Convention declared in the preceding chapters, the Court will analyze the claims presented by the Commission and the representatives, as well as the arguments of the State, in light of the criteria established in its case law regarding the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparations, for the purpose of ordering measures aimed at repairing the damage caused to the victims. 328 269. The Court finds it pertinent to reiterate that the denial of justice to the detriment of the victims of serious human rights violations, such as those in the instant case, results in a variety of effects in both the individual and the collective sphere. Thus, it is evident that the victims of prolonged impunity suffer different adverse effects owing to their search for justice, not only of a pecuniary nature, but also suffering and damage of a psychological and physical nature, and to their life project, as well as other possible changes in their social relationships and their families and community dynamics. This Court has indicated that such suffering is increased by the absence of support from the State authorities in the effective search for and identification of the remains, and the impossibility of honoring their loved ones appropriately. Accordingly, the Court has considered the need to grant different measures of reparation, in order to redress the damage fully; thus, in addition to pecuniary compensation, measures of satisfaction, restitution and rehabilitation, and guarantees of non-repetition, have special relevance owing to the severity of the effects and the collective nature of the damage caused. 329 A. Injured party 270. In the instant case, the Commission asked the Court to order the State to establish mechanisms for: i) “the full identification of the victims executed”; ii) “the determination of the persons who disappeared in the massacres” and “the survivors” thereof; and iii) “the full identification of the next of kin of the victims who were executed and disappeared, so that they may claim the reparations to which they are entitled.” The representatives requested the creation of “a mechanism to identify all the surviving victims of the massacres [, as well as] their next of kin [,] and that the Court leave open the possibility that those surviving victims [who] are identified by the State be included as victims and, consequently, as beneficiaries of the reparations.” 271. The State referred to the efforts it is making to locate, exhume and identify the remains of the victims in the municipality of Rabinal (infra para. 291). It also referred to the criteria applied to qualify as a beneficiary of the National Reparations Program (PNR), the easing of requirements for the registration of the population in the civil registries and the creation of the National Registry of Persons (RENAP), whose purpose is to organize and maintain a single identification registry of natural persons. Thus, it affirmed that it has “a mechanism that facilitates the identification of persons so that they may subsequently be beneficiaries of the reparations.” 272. The Court reiterates that, according to Article 63(1) of the Convention, the injured party is the party that has been declared a victim of the violation of any right recognized in the Convention. 330 Therefore, the Court considers as “injured party” those persons referred to in 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 Herrera Espinoza et al. v. Ecuador, para. 211. 328 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, paras. 25 to 27, and Case of Herrera Espinoza et al. v. Ecuador, para. 213. 329 Cf. Case of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, para. 226, and Case of Massacres of El Mozote and Nearby Places v. El Salvador, para. 305. 330 Cf. Case of La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 233, and Case of Herrera Espinoza et al. v. Ecuador, para. 212. 327