316. The Court has established that the reparations must have a causal connection to the facts of the case, the violations declared, the damage proved, and the measures requested to repair the respective damage. Therefore, the Court must observe that these factors are present in order to rule appropriately and in keeping with the law.403 317. Based on the violations declared in the preceding chapters, the Court will proceed to examine the claims presented by the Commission and by the representatives, as well as the arguments of the State, so as to order measures designed to repair the harm caused to the victims. Regarding the State’s arguments, the Court observes that it only submitted specific arguments on some of the measures of reparation requested. Apart from this, in general, Venezuela asked the Court to reject the requests for reparations made by the Commission and the representatives. A. Injured party 318. According to Article 63(1) of the American Convention, those who have been declared victims of the violation of a right embodied in the Convention are considered injured parties.404 The victims in the instant case have been identified in the corresponding chapters on merits (supra paras. 68, 79, 84, 85, 96, 131, 147, 150, 168, 245, 249, 256, 260, 263, 266, 272, 285 and 312). These persons shall be considered beneficiaries of the reparations ordered by the Court. B. Obligation to investigate the facts 319. The Commission and the representatives agreed substantially as regards the State’s obligation to investigate the facts and, as appropriate, to punish those responsible. In summary, they asked the Court to order the State to conduct a complete, impartial and effective investigation, within a reasonable time, in order to identify, prosecute and punish the masterminds and perpetrators of the facts of the instant case. 320. The Commission added that these investigations must be conducted so that they establish the connections between each of the facts of the case, as well as between those facts and the more general context of extrajudicial executions in Venezuela and the harassment of the victims’ next of kin. In addition, it indicated that the State must order the corresponding administrative, disciplinary or criminal measures for all the State officials who contributed to the denial of justice, and to impunity in relation to this case. 321. The representatives added that Venezuela must guarantee that the authorities in charge of the investigation have available all the means required to conduct it promptly, as well as the powers to have access to the pertinent documentation to investigate the facts, and that the State must not use provisions of domestic law, such as prescription, res judicata, non-retroactivity of criminal law, ne bis in idem, or any other similar mechanism excluding responsibility, to evade its obligations. In addition, they asked that the results of the said investigation be published so that society is aware of them. Lastly, they also requested the administrative sanction of the public servants responsible for the irregularities in the investigations. 403 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 Barbani Duarte et al., supra note 12, para. 241. 404 Cf. Case of the La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 233, and Case of Barbani Duarte et al., supra note 12, para. 242. 99