because the presumption of his innocence was infringed and the length of his criminal trial was excessive. The latter violated Articles 7(1), 7(5), 8(1), and 8(2) of the Convention, in conjunction with its Article 1(1). VIII REPARATIONS 98. Pursuant to the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention, the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has caused harm entails the obligation to remedy it adequately, and that this provision reflects a customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility. 61 99. Remedying the harm produced by the infringement of an international obligation requires, whenever possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists in restoring the prior situation. When this is not feasible, as in the majority of cases of human rights violations, this Court will determine measures to guarantee the violated rights and to remedy the consequences of those violations. 62 The reparations must have a causal nexus with the facts of the case, the declared violations, and the proven harm. 63 100. This Court will analyze the claims for reparation in light of the criteria set in its case law regarding the scope of the obligation to remedy. 64 A) Injured party 101. Pursuant to Article 63(1) of the Convention, the injured party is anyone who has been declared a victim of the violation of any right recognized in this instrument. Therefore, the “injured party” is Ramón Rosendo Carranza Alarcón, who has been reported to be deceased (supra footnote on page 4). B) Measures of satisfaction 102. This Court orders, as it has in other cases, 65 that the State publish within six months of the notification of this Judgment: a) the official summary of this judgment prepared by the Court, once, in the Official Gazette in a legible and appropriate font size; b) the official summary of the judgment prepared by the Court, once, in a newspaper with broad national circulation in a legible and appropriate font size; and c) the present Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25, and Case of Jenkins v. Argentina, para. 122. 61 62 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs, para. 26, and Case of Jenkins v. Argentina, para. 123. 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 Jenkins v. Argentina, para. 124. 63 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs, paras. 25 to 27, and Case of Jenkins v. Argentina, para. 125. 64 65 This is required even in the absence of an explicit request, as occurred in this case (cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 88, para. 79, and Case of Hernández v. Argentina. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2019. Series C No. 395, footnote on page 232). 23