33 regarding the nature and scope of the obligation to redress,135 as well as the aforementioned considerations on the merits and violations of the Convention determined in the previous chapters, the Court will proceed to analyze the parties’ arguments concerning reparations, so as to order the relevant measures to redress the damages. B) Injured Party 119. The Court will now proceed to determine who should be considered as the “injured party” under Article 63(1) of the American Convention, and consequently as beneficiaries of the reparations set by the Court. 120. The Court considers Messrs. Lennox Boyce, Jeffrey Joseph, Frederick Atkins, and Michael Huggins as the injured parties in the present case who, in their nature as victims of the violations established in the present Judgment (supra, paras. 62, 63, 74, 80, 94, 102, 109, 111, and 116), are the beneficiaries of the reparations set out by the Court. C) Measures of Redress 121. The Court will first proceed to summarize the parties’ arguments with regards to reparations, and will then determine which measures must be ordered to redress the damage caused by the violations established in the present Judgment. 122. In this regard, the Commission noted in its final written arguments that the representatives are not seeking monetary compensations in this case. Accordingly, the Commission stated that the appropriate measures of redress in the present case must include the following structural measures that guarantee the non-repetition of the violations addressed in this case: 1) adoption of such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the imposition of the death penalty does not contravene the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Convention; 2) adoption of measures necessary to ensure that the Constitution and laws of Barbados are brought into compliance with the American Convention by ensuring that acts in violation of national law or the American Convention are not immune from judicial scrutiny and protection, and 3) adoption and implementation of measures necessary to ensure that the conditions of detention in which the victims are held comply with the standards of humane treatment mandated by Article 5 of the Convention. Finally, the Commission supported an award of such costs and expenses as were reasonable and necessary in the presentation of this case both at the national level and before the inter-American system. 123. The representatives requested that the Court declare that the State is responsible for violations of the rights of the victims in the present case, and “in order to emphasize that this action [was] brought not to enrich the alleged victims, but rather to preserve their life and to secure their humane treatment, [the representatives] do not seek financial 135 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 133, paras. 25-26; Case of Garrido and Baigorria V. Argentina. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, para. 43, and Case of The “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.), supra note 24, paras. 76-79. Cf. also Case of La Cantuta, supra note 64, paras. 200-203, and Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison, supra note 24, paras. 414-416.