- 91 287. The reparation of the harm caused by the violation of an international obligation requires, whenever this is possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists in 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 infringed, and to redress the consequences of the resulting harm.451 Consequently, the Court has considered it necessary to award different measures of reparation in order to repair the harm fully; thus, in addition to pecuniary compensation, measures of restitution and satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition are particularly relevant in view of the harm caused.452 288. The Court has established that reparations must have a causal nexus with the facts of the case, the violations that have been declared, the harm proved, and also the measures requested to redress the respective damage. The Court must observe this concurrence in order to rule appropriately and in accordance with the law.453 289. Based on the violations declared in the preceding chapters, the Court will proceed to examine the claims presented by the Commission and the representatives, as well as the arguments of the State, in light of the criteria established in its case law as regards the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparation,454 in order to establish measures to redress the harm caused to the victims. A. Injured party 290. The Court reiterates that, pursuant to Article 63(1) of the Convention, the injured party is considered those who have been declared victims of the violation of any right recognized therein.455 Therefore, the Court consider that Tirza del Carmen Flores Lanza, Adán Guillermo López Lone, Luis Alonso Chévez de la Rocha and Ramón Enrique Barrios Maldonado are the “injured party” and, in their capacity as victims of the violations declared in Chapters VII-1, VII-2 and VII-3, they will be the beneficiaries of the following reparations ordered by the Court. B. General arguments of the State 291. The State did not present specific arguments about all the measures of reparation requested by the Commission and the representatives. In general, it argued that “trying to assert that [the events constitute] a wrongful act that can be attributed to the State […] is manipulating the vision and analysis that has been made of the events in which the petitioners were involved, acting irresponsibly, violating the restrictions that, in the exercise of their functions, are established by the pertinent law and regulations.” Therefore, it argued that “in view of the offenses committed by the petitioners and the incompatibility of these offenses with domestic law, no reparation is in order.” C. Measures of integral reparation: restitution, satisfaction and guarantees of nonrepetition 451 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, supra, para. 26, and Case of Omar Humberto Maldonado Vargas et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 150. 452 Cf. Case of 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 Omar Humberto Maldonado Vargas et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 150. 453 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 Omar Humberto Maldonado Vargas et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 149. 454 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, supra, paras. 25 to 27, and Case of Omar Humberto Maldonado Vargas et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 151. 455 Cf. Case of the La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, supra, para. 233, and Case of Omar Humberto Maldonado Vargas et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 153.