to the pecuniary compensation, measures of restitution and satisfaction, and guarantees of non-repetition have special relevance in relation to the damage caused. 311 278. This Court has established that the reparations must have a causal connection to the facts of the case, the violations that have been declared, the damage that has been proved, and also the measures requested to repair the respective damage. Consequently, the Court must observe the concurrence of these elements in order to rule appropriately and in keeping with law. 312 279. Based on the violations of the American Convention declared in the preceding chapters, the Court will proceed to analyze the claims presented by 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 concerning the nature and scope of the obligation to repair, 313 in order to establish measures addressed at repairing the damage caused to the victims. 280. Before determining the measures of reparation, the Court notes that, in its answering brief, the State, in general and “subsidiarily,” asked the Court not to admit the reparations requested by the representatives, although it did not refer specifically to the requests for reparation, with the exception of its observations on the requests for compensation for non-pecuniary damage (infra para. 318). In addition, the State submitted observations with regard to costs and expenses after its answering brief, which were admitted by the Court (supra para. 71). In its final written arguments, the State introduced some new arguments, which are inadmissible as they are time-barred; hence, the Court will not take them into account when examining the measures of reparation requested. A) Injured party 281. The Court reiterates that, under Article 63(1) of the Convention, it considers the injured party to be the person who has been declared a victim of the violation of any right recognized in the Convention. Therefore, this Court considers that Narciso González Medina and his wife Luz Altagracia Ramírez de González, and also their children: Ernesto, Rhina Yokasta, Jennie Rosanna and Amaury, all González Ramírez are the “injured party” and, as victims of the violations declared in Chapters VII, VIII and IX, they will be considered beneficiaries of the reparations ordered by the Court. B) Obligation to investigate the facts that gave rise to the violations and to identify, prosecute and, as appropriate, punish those responsible, as well as to determine the whereabouts of the victim B.1) Obligation to investigate the facts, prosecute and, as appropriate, punish all the masterminds and perpetrators 282. The Commission asked the Court to order the State “to conduct an impartial, diligent and effective investigation […] into the circumstances surrounding his forced disappearance, in order to identify those responsible and impose the corresponding punishments.” The Commission also asked that the State be ordered “to investigate the acts or omissions of 311 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 88, paras. 79 to 81, and Case of Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay, supra note 275, para. 240. 312 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada v. Bolivia, supra note 239, para. 110, and Case of Fontevecchia and D’Amico v. Argentina, supra note 70, para. 99. 313 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, supra note 308, paras. 25 to 27, and Case of López Mendoza v. Venezuela, supra note 68, para. 208. 85