227. In consideration of the violations declared in the previous chapters, this Court will proceed to analyze the claims presented by the Commission and the representatives, as well as the arguments of the State, in light of the criteria established in the Court's case law in relation to the nature and scope of the obligation to repair, in order to provide the measures aimed at repairing the damage caused to the victims.188 228. International case law, and in particular that of this Court, has repeatedly established that the judgment constitutes by itself a form of reparation. 189 However, considering the circumstances of this case and the violations committed against the victim, the Court deems it pertinent to establish other measures. A. Injured Party 229. This Court reiterates that it considers an injured party, in the terms of Article 63(1) of the Convention, to be the victim of a violation of any right recognized therein. Therefore, this Court considers Tirso Román Valenzuela Ávila to be the “injured party”. B. Obligation to investigate B.1. Investigate, identify and, where appropriate, punish those responsible for the death of Tirso Román Valenzuela Ávila. 230. The Commission asked the Court to order the State to investigate, diligently, effectively and within a reasonable time, the "extrajudicial execution" of Mr. Valenzuela Ávila in order to fully clarify the facts, identify the perpetrators and impose the corresponding sanctions. The representatives asked the Court to order the State to investigate all the facts related to the violations committed so that they do not remain unpunished. 231. The State argued that the investigation process for the death of Mr. Valenzuela Ávila is still open and that his case has not gone unpunished, that the delay in the proceedings has been due to the complexity of the matter and that all proceedings considered appropriate to find those responsible have been conducted. 232. In this judgment the Court declared, inter alia, that the investigations carried out were not diligent or effective, nor did the State respect the guarantee of a reasonable time, to establish what happened, identify, prosecute and, where appropriate, punish those responsible for the events that occurred to Tirso Román Valenzuela Ávila. 233. Taking into account that the criminal proceedings remain open to clarify the facts related to the death of Tirso Román Valenzuela Ávila (supra para. 103), the Court orders that the State must continue with the investigations that are necessary to identify, prosecute and, where appropriate, punish those responsible for his death, taking into account the possible hypotheses of the cause of death. Said obligation must be fulfilled in accordance with the standards established by the case law of this Court,190 that is, with due diligence and within a Cf. Case of Andrade Salmón v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of December 1, 2016. Series C No. 330, para. 189, and Case of Gorigoitía v. Argentina, supra, para. 62. 189 Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al. v. Peru. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 19, 1996. Series C No. 29, para. 56, and Case of Gorigoitía v. Argentina, supra, para. 63. 188 Cf. Case of the Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 28, 2014. Series C No. 283, para. 252, and Case of Munárriz Escobar et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 122. 190 55