102 RCTV partners has not been clearly proved, the Court finds that, in this case, it has not been proved that the State has violated the right to property of the presumed victims pursuant to Article 21 of the Convention. X. REPARATIONS (Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention) 360. Based on the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention,383 the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has caused harm entails the obligation to repair this adequately, 384 and that this provision reflects a customary rule that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility.385 361. The reparation of the harm caused by the violation of an international obligation requires, whenever possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists in the reestablishment of the previous situation. If this is not feasible, as in most cases of human rights violations, the Court will determine measures to ensure the rights that have been violated and to redress the consequences of the harm that the violations have caused.386 362. This Court has established that reparations must have a causal nexus with the facts of the case, the violations that have been declared, the harm that has been proved and the measures requested to redress the respective harm. Therefore, the Court must observe this concurrence to rule appropriately and pursuant to the law. 387 363. The Court has found it necessary to grant diverse measures of reparation in order to redress the harm integrally, so that in addition to pecuniary compensation, measures of satisfaction, restitution and rehabilitation as well as guarantees of non-repetition have special relevance owing to the adverse effects and harm caused.388 364. Based on the violations of the American Convention declared in Chapters VII and VIII, the Court will now examine the arguments and recommendations submitted by the Commission and the claims of 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,389 in order to establish measures aimed at redressing the harm caused to the victims. A) Injured party Article 63(1) of the Convention establishes that “[i]f the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by this Convention, the Court shall rule that the injured party be ensured the enjoyment of his right or freedom that was violated. It shall also rule, if appropriate, that the consequences of the measure or situation that constituted the breach of such right or freedom be remedied and that fair compensation be paid to the injured party.” 383 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25, and Case of Cruz Sánchez et al. v. Peru, para. 451. 384 Cf. Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 43, para. 50, and Case of Cruz Sánchez et al. v. Peru, para. 451. 385 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, para. 26, and Case of Cruz Sánchez et al. v. Peru, para. 452. 386 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 Cruz Sánchez et al. v. Peru, para. 453. 387 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No.88, paras. 79 to 81, and Case of Cruz Sánchez et al. v. Peru, para. 452. 388 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, paras. 25 to 27, and Case of Cruz Sánchez et al. v. Peru, para. 454. 389