of the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection recognized in Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention, to the detriment of the next of kin of Mrs. María Inés Chinchilla Sandoval, namely, Marta María Gantenbein Chinchilla, Luz de María Juárez Chinchilla and Luis Mariano Juárez Chinchilla. VIII REPARATIONS (Application of Article 63 (1) of the American Convention) 261. Based on the provisions of Article 63 (1) of the American Convention, 360 the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has produced harm entails the obligation to make adequate reparation 361 and that this provision reflects a customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility.362 262. The reparation of the harm caused by the violation of an international obligation requires, whenever possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists of the reestablishment of the previous situation. If this is not feasible, the Court will determine measures to guarantee the rights that have been violated and to redress the consequences of those violations.363 The reparations must have a causal nexus with the facts of the case, the violations declared, the damages proven and the measures requested to repair the resulting harm.364 263. Considering the violations of the Convention declared in the foregoing chapters, the Court will proceed to examine the claims presented by the Commission and the representatives, and the arguments of the State, in light of the criteria established in its case law regarding the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparation, so as to establish measures aimed at redressing the harm caused to the victims.365 A. Injured party 264. Under the terms of Article 63(1) of the Convention, the Court considers as injured party anyone who has been declared a victim of the violation of any right recognized therein. Article 63(1) of the American Convention establishes that “[if] 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.” 360 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25, and Case of the Kaliña and Lokono Peoples v. Suriname, supra, para. 269. 361 Cf. Case Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs, supra, para. 25, and Case of the Kaliña and Lokono Peoples v. Suriname, supra, para. 269. 362 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs, supra, para. 26, and Case of Quispialaya Vilcapoma v. Peru, supra, para. 252. 363 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 the Kaliña and Lokono Peoples v. Suriname, supra, para. 270. 364 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Reparations and costs, supra, paras. 25 to 27, and Case of the Kaliña and Lokono Peoples v. Suriname, supra, para. 271. 365 84