96. Reparation for the harm caused by the breach of an international obligation requires, whenever possible, full restitution (restitutio in integrum), which consists of reestablishing the situation prior to the violation. If this is not feasible, as in the majority of cases of human rights violations, the Court may order measures to protect the violated rights and repair the harm caused by the violations.93 97. International jurisprudence, and especially that of this Court, has repeatedly established that the judgment is, per se, a form of reparation.94 Nevertheless, considering the circumstances of the present case and the suffering that the violations caused to the victims, the Court finds it relevant to establish the measures that it will identify in this chapter. A. Injured parties 98. The Court reiterates that it considers the injured party, pursuant to the provisions of Article 63(1) of the Convention, anyone who has been a declared victim of the violation of any right recognized therein. Therefore, the Court considers the injured parties to be César Gustavo Garzón Guzmán; his father, Julio Garzón; his mother, Clorinda Guzmán; his brothers, Luis Alberto Garzón Guzmán and Rodrigo Garzón Guzmán; his brother-in-law, Luis Lascano, and his niece, Ana Julia Lascano, who as victims of the violations declared in Chapter VIII will be the beneficiaries of what the Court orders below. The Court takes note that Julio Garzón, father of Cesar Gustavo Garzón Guzmán, died during the proceedings of this case. B. Obligation to investigate the facts and identify, prosecute and, if applicable, punish those responsible, as well as to determine the whereabouts of the victim B.1 Investigation, determination, prosecution and, if applicable, punishment of all those responsible 99. The Commission requested that the Court order that the relevant proceedings be carried out for the offense of the forced disappearance of Mr. Garzón Guzmán, in an impartial and effective manner and within a reasonable time, in order to shed light on what occurred, identify those responsible and impose the relevant sanctions. It also asked that the Court order administrative, disciplinary or criminal measures for the acts or omissions of the State agents who contributed to the denial of justice and to the impunity that exists in the case, including the acts or omission of authorities who might have impeded the search. 100. The representative requested that the State conduct, as soon as possible, an investigation to clarify the facts and punish those responsible. 101. The State did not refer specifically to this matter. 102. The Court has declared in this Judgment that the State is responsible for the violation of the right to access to justice of the victims in that it failed in its obligation to initiate an No. 7, para. 25 and Case of Jenkins v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2019. Series C No. 397, para. 122. Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs, supra, para. 26 and Case of Almeida v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 17, 2020. Series C No. 416, para. 55. 93 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 Muelle Flores v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 6, 2019. Series C No. 375, para. 267. 94 24