violated the right to judicial guarantees established in Article 8(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Gabriel Óscar Jenkins. IX REPARATIONS 122. Based on the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention,120 the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has caused harm entails the obligation to redress this adequately and that this provision reflects a customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility.121 123. Reparation of the harm caused by the violation of an international obligation requires, whenever possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists in the restoration 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 violated rights and to redress the consequences of the violations. 122 Therefore, the Court has considered the need to grant diverse measures of reparation in order to redress the harm integrally so that, in addition to pecuniary compensation, measures of restitution, rehabilitation and satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition have special relevance for the harm caused.123 124. The Court has established that the reparations must have a causal nexus with the facts of the case, the violations that have been declared, the harm verified, and the measures requested to redress the respective harm. Therefore, the Court must observe this concurrence in order to rule duly and pursuant to law.124 125. Taking into account the violations of the American Convention declared in the preceding chapters, in light of the criteria established in the Court’s case law in relation to the nature and scope of the obligation to provide reparation, 125 the Court will analyze the claims presented by the Commission and the representatives, together with the corresponding arguments of the State, in order to establish measures to redress the said violations. A. Injured party 126. Pursuant to Article 63(1) of the Convention, the Court has considered that anyone who has been declared a victim of the violation of any right recognized therein is the injured party. Therefore, the Court considers that Gabriel Óscar Jenkins is the injured party and, in his capacity as a victim of the violations declared in Chapter VIII, he will be the beneficiary of the reparations ordered by the 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.” 120 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25, and Case of Girón et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 15, 2019. Series C No. 390, para. 124. 121 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, supra, paras. 25 and 26, and Case of Girón et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 125. 122 Cf. Case of the Las 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 Gorigoitía v. Argentina. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 2, 2019. Series C No. 382, para. 60. 123 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada v. Bolivia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 110, and Case of Girón et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 126. 124 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, supra, paras. 25 to 27, and Case of Girón et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 127. 125 31