98 IX REPARATIONS (Application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention) 324. Based on the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention,396 the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has produced harm results in 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.397 325. Reparation of the harm caused by the violation of an international obligation requires, whenever possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists in the re-establishment 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 rights that have been violated and to redress the consequences of such violations.398 Accordingly, the Court has considered the need to grant diverse measures of reparation in order to redress the harm comprehensively so that, in addition, to pecuniary compensation, measures of restitution, rehabilitation and satisfaction, and guarantees of non-repetition are particularly relevant for the harm caused. 399 326. The Court has established that reparations must have a causal nexus with the facts of the case, the violations declared, the damage proved, and the measures requested to redress the respective harm. Consequently, the Court must observe the concurrence of these factors to rule appropriately and pursuant to the law.400 In addition, the Court considers that the reparations should include an analysis that takes into account not only the right of the victim to obtain redress, but also incorporates a gender perspective, in both their establishment and implementation. 327. Based on the violations of the Convention declared in the preceding chapters, the Court will now proceed to examine the claims presented by the Commission and the representative, in light of the criteria established in its case law with regard to the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparation, in order to establish measures aimed at repairing the harm caused to the victim.401 A. Injured party 328. According to Article 63(1) of the Convention, the injured party is considered to be the person who has been declared a victim of the violation of any of the rights recognized therein. Therefore, the Court considers that I.V. is the “injured party” and, in her capacity as a victim of the violations declared in this judgment, she will be considered the beneficiary of the reparations that the Court Article 63(1) of the Convention stipulates 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.” 396 397 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25, and Case of Herrera Espinoza et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 210. Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, supra, para. 26, and Case of Herrera Espinoza et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 210. 398 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 88, paras. 79 to 81, and Case of Herrera Espinoza et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 214. 399 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 Herrera Espinoza et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 211. 400 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Reparations and costs, supra, paras. 25 to 27, and Case of Herrera Espinoza et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 213. 401