the arguments of the State, in light of the criteria established in its case law regarding the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparation. 647 A. Injured party 470. The Court reiterates that under Article 63(1) of the Convention, it considers as injured party anyone who has been declared a victim of the violation of any right recognized therein. 648 Therefore, this Court considers Jorge Martínez Meléndez as injured party. Consequently, the Court will only refer to the arguments made on his behalf. B. Comprehensive measures of reparation B.1. Satisfaction B.1.1 Publication of the judgment B.1.1.1 Arguments of the Commission and the parties 471. The Commission did not request measures of satisfaction. 472. The common interveners Factum Consorcio asked the Court to order the State to issue a statement in which it accepts and declares its responsibility for the violations of human rights and judicial guarantees in relation to the victim Jorge Alberto Martínez Meléndez. 649 473. In general terms, the State asked the Court to reject all claims for reparation made by the alleged victim. B.1.1.2. Considerations of the Court 474. With respect to the request made by the common interveners Factum Consorcio, the Court does not consider it necessary to order a “declaration” of responsibility on the part of the State. In this regard, international jurisprudence has established that the judgment constitutes per se a form of reparation. 650 Nevertheless, as it has done in other cases, 651 the Court finds it pertinent to order the State to make the following publications within six months of notification of this judgment: a) the official summary of this judgment prepared by the Court, to be published in the Official Gazette, in a legible and adequate font size, and b) this judgment in its entirety, to be made available for at least one year on an official web site of the State. 475. The State shall immediately inform this Court once it has made each of the publications ordered, regardless of the one-year term to submit its first report provided for in twentyfourth operative paragraph of this judgment. 647 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, supra, paras. 25 to 27, and Case of the Xucuru Indigenous People and its members v. Brazil, supra, para. 185. 648 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 the Xucuru Indigenous People and its members v. Brazil, supra, para. 187. 649 In their final written arguments they requested, extemporaneously, the publication of the official summary of the judgment in the Official Gazette and in a daily newspaper and the publication of the judgment for one year on the web site of the Costa Rican Legal Information System (SINALEVI). 650 Cf. Case of El Amparo v. Venezuela. Reparations and costs. Judgment of September 14, 1996. Series C No. 28, para. 35, and Case of the Xucuru Indigenous People and its members v. Brazil, supra, para. 197. 651 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 88, para. 79, and Case of the Xucuru Indigenous People and its members v. Brazil, supra, para. 199. 142