43 jurisprudence in relation to the nature and scope of the obligation to repair,154 the Court shall analyze both the claims made by the Commission and the representatives and the arguments of the State about the matter, in order to set measures for reparation of the damages caused to the victim. 205. Before analyzing the reparations claimed, the Court observes that the State did not submit any specific allegations about the measures for reparation requested by the Commission or the representatives. However, it requested that, “each of the claims and reparations requested be dismissed.” A) Injured party 206. The Commission and the representatives agreed that the “injured party” was Mr. Usón Ramírez, his spouse, María Eugenia Borges de Usón, and his daughter, María José Usón Borges. 207. To that end, the Tribunal reiterates that an injured party is any person who has been declared a victim of violations of any right under the Convention.155 The only person who has been declared a victim in this judgment has been Mr. Usón Ramírez. Therefore, this Tribunal considers that the only “injured party” is Mr. Francisco Usón Ramírez, as a victim of the violations that were declared against him, so Mr. Usón Ramírez shall receive the reparation measures ordered by the Tribunal 208. On the other hand, although evidence was submitted in this case regarding the alleged injuries suffered by Mrs. María Eugenia Borges de Usón as a consequence of the declared violations,156 neither the Commission nor the representatives alleged that she or her daughter were victims of any violation of the rights under the American Convention. Due to the above, and taking into account the Tribunal’s jurisprudence,157 the Court does not consider that Mrs. María Eugenia Borges de Usón and Mrs. María José Usón Borges are “injured parties.” B) Measures of satisfaction and guarantees for non-repetition 209. In this section, the Tribunal shall determine the measures of satisfaction sought to repair the non-pecuniary damage whose nature is not pecuniary, and shall set measures of scope or public repercussion.158 B.1) Judgment as a form of reparation 154 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 152, paras. 25 a 27; Case of DaCosta Cadogan, supra note 9, para. 95, and Case of Garibaldi, supra note 11, para. 151. 155 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua-Morales et al) v. Guatemala. Reparations, and Costs. Judgment May 25, 2001. Series C No. 76, para. 82; Case of DaCosta Cadogan, supra note 9, para. 97, and Case of Garibaldi, supra note 11, para. 152. 156 Medical Report of Dr. Jairo Fernández dated October 20, 2008 (case file of attachments al written brief containing pleadings, motions, and evidence, attachment 10, fs. 4932 to 4934). 157 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua-Morales et al), supra note 155, para. 82; Case of DaCosta Cadogan, supra note 9, para. 97, and Case of Garibaldi, supra note 11, para. 152. 158 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán-Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 26, 2001. Series C No. 77, para. 84; Case of DaCosta Cadogan, supra note 9, para. 99, and Case of Garibaldi, supra note 11, para. 153.