to appropriately repair it, and that this provision contains a customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary International Law on State responsibility. 171 186. Reparation of the harm caused by the violation of an international obligation requires, whenever possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists in the restoration of the previous condition. If this is not feasible, as happens in most cases of human rights violations, this Court will determine measures to guarantee the violated rights and repair the consequences resulting from those the violations. 172 Therefore, the Court has considered the need to grant various measures of reparation, in order to compensate the damages in a comprehensive manner, so that in addition to pecuniary compensation, the measures of restitution, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition have special relevance for the harm caused. 173 187. This Court has established that the reparations must have a causal link with the facts of the case, the violations declared, the harm attributed, as well as the measures requested to repair the respective damages. Therefore, the Court must observe said concurrence in order to issue due judgment, in accordance with the law. 174 188. In consideration of the violations declared in the previous chapter, this Court will proceed to analyze the claims of the Commission and the representatives, as well as the arguments of the State, in light of the criteria established in the Court’s case law in relation to the nature and scope of the obligation to repair, in order to provide the measures aimed at repairing the harm caused to the victims. 175 A. Injured party 189. This Court reiterates that the injured party, under the terms of Article 63(1) of the Convention, is considered to be a victim of the violation of any right recognized therein. Therefore, this Court considers as “injured party” Jorge Luis Cuya Lavy, Jean Aubert Díaz Alvarado, Marta Silvana Rodríguez Ricse, and Walter Antonio Valenzuela Cerna, who, in their capacity as victims of the violations declared in chapter VIII of this Judgment, will be considered beneficiaries of the reparations ordered by the Court. B. Measures of restitution, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition B.1 Measures of restitution 190. The Commission requested that the victims be reinstated to a position similar to that held, with the same remuneration, social benefits and rank comparable to that which would correspond to them today if they had not been removed. In the event that this is not the will of the alleged victims or that there are objective reasons that prevent their reinstatement, the State must pay compensation, which is independent of the reparations relating to pecuniary and nonpecuniary damage. 191. The representatives requested that the State order: 171 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 26, and Case of Garzón Guzmán v. Ecuador, supra, para. 95. 172 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs, supra, and Case of Garzón Guzmán v. Ecuador, supra, para. 96. 173 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 Bedoya Lima v. Colombia, supra, para. 164. 174 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 Bedoya Lima v. Colombia, supra, para. 165. 175 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 Bedoya Lima v. Colombia, supra, para. 166. 47