been infringed and to redress the consequences of the violations that have occurred. 240 Therefore, the Court has found it necessary to grant diverse measures of reparation in order to repair the harm fully, so that in addition to pecuniary compensation, measures of restitution, rehabilitation and satisfaction and also guarantees of non-repetion have special relevance for the harm caused.241 200. The Court has established that reparations should have a causal nexus to the facts of the case, the violations declared, the harm proved, and the measures requrested to redress the respective harm. Therefore, the Court must analyze whether these elements are present in order to rule appropriately and in accordance with law.242 201. Based on the violations declared in the preceding chapters, the Court will proceed to examine the claims presented by the Commission and the representatives, together with the arguments of the State, in light of the criteria established in its case law concerning the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparation, in order to establish the measures aimed at redressing the harm caused to the victims.243 202. International case law and, in particular, that of the Court, has established repeatedly that the judgment constitutes, in itself, a form of reparation.244 Nevertheless, considering the circumstances of this case and the suffering that the violations commtted caused to the victims, the Court finds it pertinent to establish other measures. A. Injured party 203. The Court considers that “injured party,” in the terms of Article 63(1) of the American Convention, refers to those who have been declared victims of the violation of any right recognized therein.245 Therefore, the Court considers that the victims and their next of kin are the “injured party”246 and, in their capacity as victims of the violations declared in this judgement, they will be considered the beneficiaries of the reparations ordered by the Court. B. Measures of rehabilitation and satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 26, and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 25, 2018. Series C No. 354, para. 467. 240 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 Ramírez Escobar et al. v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 9, 2018. Series C No. 351, para. 266. 241 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 Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 25, 2018. Series C No. 354, para. 468. 242 243 Cf. Case of Andrade Salmón v. Bolivia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of December 1, 2016. Series C No. 330, para. 189, and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 25, 2018. Series C No. 354, para. 469. Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al. v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of September 19, 1996. Series C No. 29, para. 56, and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 25, 2018. Series C No. 354, para. 474. 244 Cf. Case of Gonzales Lluy et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C No. 298, para. 233, and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 25, 2018. Series C No. 354, para. 470. 245 246 Both the direct victims and their next of kin are listed in Annex 2 to the judgment. 69