entails the obligation to make adequate reparation. This provision reflects a customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international Law on State responsibility.321 214. In consideration of the violations of the Convention declared in the preceding chapters, the Court will proceed to analyze the claims submitted by the Commission and the representatives, in light of the criteria established in its case law in relation to the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparation, in order to decide on the measures intended to redress the damage caused to the victims.322 215. Given that the Court has established that reparations should have a causal nexus with the facts of the case, the violations declared, the damage proved and the measures requested to redress the respective damage, it must observe this correspondence in order to rule appropriately and according to law.323 A. Injured Party 216. The Court reiterates that, under Article 63(1) of the Convention, anyone who has been declared a victim of the violation of any rights established in the Convention shall be considered an injured party.324 Therefore, the Court considers as “injured party” Carlos Luna López and his family members Mariana Lubina López, Rosa Margarita Valle Hernández, Carlos Antonio Luna Valle, Lubina Mariana Luna Valle, César Augusto Luna Valle, Allan Miguel Luna Valle, José Fredy Luna Valle and Roger Herminio Luna Valle. As victims of the violations declared in this Judgment, they will be considered as the beneficiaries of the Court-ordered reparations. B. Obligation to investigate the facts appropriate, sanction those responsible and identify, judge, and where B. 1. Request for investigation, resolution, prosecution and possible punishment for all of those materially and intellectually responsible 217. Both the Commission and the representatives asked the Court to order the State to expeditiously undertake a complete, impartial and effective judicial investigation for the purpose of clarifying the circumstances that led to the murder of Mr. Luna López and to identify all the material and intellectual authors and other participants involved in order to judge and punish them. They also asked the Court to require the State to order, in a thorough and effective manner, the appropriate administrative, disciplinary or punitive measures in response to the actions or omissions of the state officials who contributed to the denial of justice and the partial impunity in this case. For its part, the State rejected the claims for reparation requested by the Commission and the representatives, considering there were no violations of Articles 4, 5(1), 8(1), 23 and 25 of the American Convention. constituted the breach of such right or freedom be remedied and that fair compensation be paid to the injured party.” 321 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C, No. 7, para. 25 and Case of Suárez Peralta, supra, para. 161. 322 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Reparations and Costs, supra, paras. 25 to 27 and Case of Suárez Peralta, supra, para. 162. 323 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C, No. 191, para. 110 and Case of Suárez Peralta, supra, para. 163. 324 Cf. Case of the Massacre of La Rochela, supra, para. 233 and Case of Suárez Peralta, supra, para. 165. 65