that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility.520 436. Reparation of the harm caused by the violation of an international obligation requires, whenever possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists in the reestablishment 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 violated rights and to redress the consequences of the violations.521 437. This 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 the measures requested to repair the respective harm. Consequently, the Court must observe the concurrence of these factors to rule appropriately and in accordance with the law. 522 438. Based on the violations declared in the preceding chapter, the Court will proceed to analyze the claims submitted by the victims’ representatives, together with the State’s arguments, in light of the criteria established in the Court’s case law regarding the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparation,523 in order to establish measures aimed at repairing the harm caused to the victims. A. Injured party 439. This Court reiterates that, pursuant to Article 63(1) of the Convention, the injured parties are considered to be those who have been declared victims of the violation of any right recognized therein.524 Therefore, the Court will consider the following as “injured parties”: 1. Alcione Freitas Sousa; 2. Alfredo Rodrigues; 3. Antônio Almir Lima da Silva; 4. Antônio Aroldo Rodrigues Santos; 5. Antônio Bento da Silva; 6. Antônio da Silva Martins; 7. Antônio Damas Filho; 8. Antônio de Paula Rodrigues de Sousa; 9. Antônio Edvaldo da Silva; 10. Antônio Fernandes Costa; 11. Antônio Francisco da Silva; 12. Antônio Francisco da Silva Fernandes; 13. Antônio Ivaldo Rodrigues da Silva; 14. Antônio Paulo da Silva; 15. Antônio Pereira da Silva; 16. Antônio Pereira dos Santos; 17. Carlito Bastos Gonçalves; 18. Carlos Alberto Silva Alves; 19. Carlos André da Conceição Pereira; 20. Carlos Augusto Cunha; 21. Carlos Ferreira Lopes; 22. Edirceu Lima de Brito; 23. Erimar Lima da Silva; 24. Firmino da Silva; 25. Francisco Antônio Oliveira Barbosa; 26. Francisco da Silva; 27. Francisco das Chagas Araujo Carvalho; 28. Francisco das Chagas Bastos Souza; 29. Francisco das Chagas Cardoso Carvalho; 30. Francisco das Chagas Costa Rabelo; 31. Francisco das Chagas da Silva Lira; 32. Francisco Mariano da Silva; 33. Francisco das Chagas Diogo; 34. Francisco das Chagas Moreira Alves; 35. Francisco das Chagas Rodrigues de Sousa; 36. Francisco das Chagas Sousa Cardoso; 37. Francisco de Assis Felix; 38. Francisco de Assis Pereira da Silva; 39. Francisco de Souza Brígido; 40. Francisco Ernesto de Melo; 41. Francisco Fabiano Leandro; 42. Francisco Ferreira da Silva; 43. Francisco Ferreira da Silva Filho; 44. Francisco José Furtado; 45. Francisco Junior da Silva; 46. Francisco Mirele Ribeiro da Silva; 47. Francisco Pereira da Silva; 48. Francisco Soares da Silva; 49. Francisco Teodoro Diogo; 50. Geraldo Ferreira da Silva; 51. Gonçalo Constâncio da Silva; 52. Gonçalo Firmino de Sousa; Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, para. 25, and Case of Herrera Espinoza et al., para. 210. 520 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, para. 26, and Case of Herrera Espinoza et al., para. 210. 521 522 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada et al., para. 110, and Case of Herrera Espinoza et al., para. 211. Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, paras. 25 to 27, and Case of Flor Freire v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2016. Series C No. 315, para. 215. 523 524 Cf. Case of the La Rochela Massacre, para. 233, and Case of Herrera Espinoza et al., para. 212. 107