VIII REPARATIONS 224. Based on Article 63(1) of the American Convention, the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has caused harm entails the duty to repair it adequately and that this provision reflects a customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility. 293 The Court has also 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 redress the respective harm. Therefore, the Court must examine the concurrence of these elements to rule appropriately and in keeping with law. 294 225. Consequently, notwithstanding any form of reparation that may subsequently be agreed between the State and the victim, and based on the foregoing considerations on the merits and the violations of the Convention declared in this judgment, the Court will proceed to examine the claims presented by the Commission and the victims’ representatives, together with the corresponding observations of the State, in light of the criteria established in its case law on the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparation, in order to establish measures to redress the harm caused.295 A. Injured party 226. The Court considers that, pursuant to Article 63(1) of the Convention, the injured party is anyone who has been declared a victim of the violation of any right recognized in this instrument. Therefore, the Court considers that Azul Rojas Marín and Juana Rosa Tanta Marín are the “injured parties” and, as victims of the violations declared in Chapter VII, they will be considered beneficiaries of the reparations ordered by the Court. B. Obligation to investigate 227. The Commission asked that the State investigate effectively, with due diligence and within a reasonable time, the rape suffered by Azul Rojas Marín, classifying it as torture. It also indicated that “taking into account the severity of the violations declared as well as interAmerican standards in this regard, the Commission underscores that the State may not argue that the dismissal decision that was delivered is governed by ne bis in idem, res judicata or the statute of limitations to justify failing to comply with this recommendation.” The representatives agreed with the Commission and asked that the investigations be conducted in an independent, diligent and effective manner. Also, that they be assigned to State organs trained in the investigation of cases of victims who have survived torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and with experience in the investigation of cases of violence against LGBTI people. To this end, the relevant international standards for this type of investigation should be applied, such as those defined in the Istanbul Protocol. The State argued that it had already ordered, as a measure of reparation, the opening of a new investigation into the crime of torture committed against Azul Rojas Marín. Regarding the administrative Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, paras. 24 and 25, and Case of Montesinos Mejía v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 217. 293 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 Montesinos Mejía v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 219. 294 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, supra, paras. 25 and 26, and Case of Montesinos Mejía v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 220. 295 59