240. Based on the violations of the American Convention declared in the preceding chapters, the Court will now consider the claims presented by the Commission and the representatives, in light of the criteria established in the Court’s case law regarding the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparation, in order to establish the measures addressed at repairing the harm caused to the victims.301 241. This Court has established that ”the reparations must have a causal nexus with the facts of the case, the violations declared, the harm proved, and the measures requested to repair the respective damage. Therefore, the Court must observe this concurrence in order to rule appropriately and in accordance with law.”302 242. The Court finds that the denial of justice to victims of grave human rights violations results in a series of adverse effects in both the individual and the collective sphere. Thus, it is evident that the victims of prolonged impunity suffer different effects owing to the search to obtain justice, not only of a pecuniary nature but also other suffering and harm of a mental and physical nature and in relation to their life project, as well as other possible alterations to their social relations and family dynamics.303 243. The Court has considered it necessary to grant different measures of reparation in order to redress the damage fully. Thus, in this case, in addition to the pecuniary compensation, measures of satisfaction and restitution, and guarantees of non-repetition are especially relevant due to the gravity of the effects and the harm caused.304 A. Injured party 244. The Court reiterates that, in the terms of Article 63(1) of the Convention, any individual who has been declared a victim of a violation of any right established in this instrument is considered an injured party. Therefore, this Court considers the persons referred to in Annex A as the “injured party” and, as victims of the violations declared in this Judgment, they will be considered beneficiaries of the reparations ordered by the Court. B. Obligation to investigate the facts and identify, prosecute and, as applicable, punish those responsible 1. Re-opening of responsibilities the investigation and determination of individual 245. The Commission asked the Court to order the State to carry out an investigation in the ordinary jurisdiction, and to conduct this investigations impartially and effectively, and within a reasonable time, in order to clarify the facts fully, identify the masterminds and perpetrators, and impose the corresponding sanctions.” In addition, the Commission asked that the State be required to order the relevant disciplinary, administrative, or criminal measures to respond to the acts or omissions of the State officials that contributed to the denial of justice and the impunity of the facts of this case, and to establish a mechanism 301 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, supra, paras. 25 to 27, and Case of the Rio Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, supra, para. 246. 302 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 the Rio Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, supra, para. 247. 303 Cf. Case of the Las Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, supra, para. 226, and Case of the Rio Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, supra, para. 272. 304 Cf. Case of the Las Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, supra, para. 226, and Case of the Rio Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, supra, para. 248. 65