275. 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. 274 Accordingly, the Court has considered the need to provide different types of reparation in order to fully redress the damage; therefore, in addition to pecuniary compensation, other measures such as satisfaction, restitution, rehabilitation, and guarantees of non-repetition have special relevance owing to the severity of the harm caused. 275 276. 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. 276 277. Therefore, taking into account the considerations on the merits and the violations of the American Convention declared in this judgment, the Court will now examine the claims presented by the Commission and the representatives of the victims, as well as the corresponding observations of the State, in light of the criteria established in its case law concerning the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparation, for the purpose of ordering measures to redress the harm caused. 277 A. Injured party 278. Pursuant to Article 63(1) of the Convention, this Court considers as injured party anyone who has been declared a victim of the violation of any right recognized therein. Therefore, this Court considers as “injured party” Daniel García Rodríguez and Reyes Alpízar Ortiz who, as victims of the violations declared in Chapter VIII, will be considered as beneficiaries of the reparations ordered by this Court. 279. The representatives requested pecuniary and non-pecuniary reparations in favor of third parties. Based on the conclusions reached in the chapter on Preliminary Considerations (supra Chapter V), these persons are not victims in this case and therefore cannot be beneficiaries of the reparation measures ordered by this Court. Accordingly, the Court will not include the requests of the representatives that refer to these persons. B. Obligation to investigate 280. The Commission and the representatives requested that the State be ordered to “[c]onclude promptly and as soon as possible the criminal proceedings against the victims in this case, in accordance with the rules of due process guaranteed by the American Convention.” Similarly, they called for “a thorough, diligent and effective investigation, within a reasonable time, to investigate the acts of torture, identify those responsible and impose the appropriate sanctions.” 274 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, supra, para. 24, and Case of Bissoon et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago, supra, para. 54. 275 Cf. Case of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211, para. 226, and Case of Dial et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago, supra, para. 81. 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 Dial et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago, supra, para. 152. 276 277 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, supra, paras. 25 and 26, Case of Leguizamón Zaván et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 15, 2020. Series C no. 473, para. 92, and Case of Baraona Bray v. Chile. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2022. Series C No. 481, para. 157. -71-