redressing the harm caused to the victims.408 The Court will also take into consideration the observations made by the victims Segundo Aniceto Norín Catrimán and Patricia Roxana Troncoso Robles with regard to reparations in their written statements before this Court.409 The State did not present specific arguments concerning the reparations requested, but when contesting some of the violations it referred to aspects that are related to the reparations requested in this case concerning amendments to domestic law. A) Injured party 416. The Court considers that, in the terms of Article 63(1) of the Convention, the injured party is anyone who has been declared a victim of the violation of any right recognized therein. Consequently, the Court finds that the “injured party” are: Segundo Aniceto Norín Catrimán, Pascual Huentequeo Pichún Paillalao, Víctor Manuel Ancalaf Llaupe, Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia, Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia, José Benicio Huenchunao Mariñán, Juan Ciriaco Millacheo Licán and Patricia Roxana Troncoso Robles. B) Measures of restitution, rehabilitation and satisfaction, and guarantees of non-repetition 1. Measure of restitution: nullify the criminal convictions imposed on the victims 417. The Commission asked the Court to order the State to “[eliminate the effects of the terrorism convictions imposed on Segundo Aniceto Norín Catrimán, Pascual Huentequeo Pichún Paillalao, Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia, José Benicio Huenchunao Mariñán, Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia, Juan Ciriaco Millacheo Licán, Patricia Roxana Troncoso Robles and Víctor Ancalaf Llaupe.” In addition, it indicated that, “[i]f the victims so choose, they shall have the opportunity to have their convictions reviewed in a proceeding conducted in accordance with the principle of legality, the prohibition of discrimination, and guarantees of due process.” 418. CEJIL asked that “the Court […] order the State to eliminate immediately all the effects of the conviction imposed on the Werken Víctor Ancalaf Llaupe, in the proceedings under case file 1-2002, Concepción Court of Appeal.” It indicated that, in view of the fact that Mr. Ancalaf had “served the prison sentence imposed on him, it did not seek a review of the judgment delivered in violation of the rights and guarantees protected by the American Convention, but rather the elimination of the effects that it continues to have and which do not allow him to live his life fully.” 419. The FIDH indicated that the effects of all the convictions should be annulled, including “all the disqualifications that affect the victims.” It asked the Court to order the State to “eliminate any annotation in any public record of the trial and sentencing of the victims, […] especially from the criminal records, and records of the police and the Public Prosecution Service, as well as the elimination of the DNA samples obtained from the victims under Law 408 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, paras. 25 and 26, and Case of Liakat Ali Alibux v. Suriname, para. 138. 409 In the statements they made on May 27, 2013, Mr. Norín Catrimán and Ms. Troncoso Robles stated that they “should […] receive full reparation,” “based on the principle of equity” and, to this end, they asked that the Court order “measures of non-repetition, such as the restitution, protection and titling of land,” “measures of satisfaction, [such as] the act of public acknowledgement of international responsibility, and the publication and dissemination of the Judgment,” “measures of rehabilitation, [such] as the provisions of basic goods […] and services,” “guarantees of non-repetition, [such as] the implementation of programs to record, document and monitor cases and situations with similar characteristics; the monitoring of compliance with the judgment of the Court; adaptation of the laws, [and] education and training of those responsible for the selective application of the law that gave rise to the violations,” as well as “compensation for the [pecuniary and non-pecuniary] damage caused” and reimbursement of “costs and expenses” (file of statements of presumed victims, witnesses and expert witnesses, folios 663 and 664). 137