the need to order several measures of reparation in order to guarantee the infringed right and fully redress the damage caused.114 143. This Court has established that the reparations must have a causal connection with the facts of the case, the violations declared, the harm proven, as well as with the measures requested to repair the damage. Consequently, the Court must adhere to this consensus in order to rule properly and according to law.115 144. In accordance with the foregoing considerations on the merits and the violation of the American Convention declared in chapter VII.D, the Court will proceed to examine the claims submitted by the Commission and the representatives, as well as the State's arguments in light of the criteria established in the Court’s jurisprudence regarding the nature and extent of the obligation to provide reparation, in order to provide measures aimed at repairing the damage caused to the victim.116 A) Injured party 145. The Court reiterates that it considers an injured party under the terms of Article 63(1) of the Convention, one who has been declared a victim of a violation of any right therein. Therefore, this Court considers as "injured party" Oscar Alberto Mohamed, who in his capacity as a victim of the violation declared in chapter VII.D of this Judgment, shall be considered the beneficiary of the reparations ordered by the Court. 146. In the section concerning reparations in the brief of pleadings and motions, the representatives asked that certain family members of Mr. Mohamed117, who were not included as victims by the Inter-American Commission in its Report on the Merits, be included as beneficiaries. The representatives stated that such persons “have been duly identified by the Commission [and that,] although they were not identified as alleged victims, they were mentioned as the wife and children of [Mr] Mohamed, who, as a result of the rulings issued by the Argentine Justice system, directly suffered violations of their fundamental rights.” 147. The State argued that “the Inter-American Commission recommended that reparation be granted only to Mr. […] Mohamed without making reference [to] his family.” It said the only circumstance that the Court should consider “in assessing the possibility of awarding pecuniary compensation” is the fact that Mr. Mohamed was the only one who “was supposedly denied access to a review of his judgment.” Therefore, “if compensation were to be granted, only [Mr.] Mohamed could be the beneficiary.” 148. The Court emphasizes that, pursuant to Article 35(1) of its Rules of Procedure, the report referred to in Article 50 of the Convention should contain “all the facts that allegedly give rise to a violation and identify the alleged victims.” In this regard, it is up 114 Cf. Case of the Massacre of Dos Erres v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211, para. 226, and Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic. Merits, Reparations and Costs, para. 243. 115 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 Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic. Merits, Reparations and Costs, para. 241. 116 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs, paras. 25 to 26, and Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic. Merits, Reparations and Costs, para. 240. 117 They argued that Mrs. Julia Potenza, wife of Mr. Mohamed, and his children, Javier Oscar, Ariel Alberto, Damián Darío and Daniel Alexis, all with the surname Mohamed, should be considered as injured party since, according to the representatives, they had suffered violations of: “the right to protection of the victim’s family (Articles 17 and 32(1) of the American Convention); the rights of the child (Article 19 […]); the right to private property (Article 21.1 and 21.2 […]), and […] the right to be compensated in the event of a legal error (Article 10 […])”. 40