92 governed by International Law.314 The Court has based its decisions in this sense on Article 63(1) of the American Convention. In the present chapter, the Tribunal will examine the claims made, in this subject, by the Inter-American Commission and the representatives, with the objective of ordering the measures tending to repair the damages caused to the victims. A. Injured Party 328. The Tribunal reiterates that it considers as injured parties, in the terms of Article 63(1) of the Convention, those who have been declared victims of any violation to a right enshrined in the same. The victims in the present case are Mr. Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco, and his children Tita, Andrea, and Rosendo, all of surnames Radilla Martínez (supra para. 111), reason for which they will be considered beneficiaries of the reparations ordered by this Court. Without detriment of the aforementioned, the Tribunal urges the State to, in attention to its acknowledgment of international responsibility in the present case, to recommendation 026/2001 of the National Human Rights Commission, and to the demands for justice, consider granting in good faith adequate reparation to the other next of kin of Mr. Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco (supra para. 111) without the need of a judicial action on their part, taking into consideration that established in the present Judgment. B. Obligation to investigate the facts and identify, prosecute, and, in its case, punish the responsible parties 329. The Commission requested that the State be ordered to carry out a complete, impartial, effective, and prompt investigation of the facts with the objective of establishing and punishing the intellectual and material responsibility of all those who participated in the forced disappearance of Mr. Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco. The representatives, on their part, asked that the Court order the State to use all the means available to make said investigation expedite and that the facts be heard before the ordinary justice system. 330. The State did not refer specifically to this measure of reparation. However, it mentioned that “[t]he investigation [of the disappearance of Mr. Rosendo Radilla] is still open and diligences are still being practiced in order to determine [his] whereabouts […] and[,]if it proceeds, of those responsible […].” Likewise, it acknowledged its obligation to avoid impunity in all cases of violations of human rights. 331. In the present case the Court established that the investigation regarding the arrest and subsequent forced disappearance of Mr. Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco has not been carried out with due diligence. Likewise, the Tribunal considers that upon expanding the competence of the military jurisdiction to acts that constitute a forced disappearance of persons, the State has violated the right of the next of kin of Mr. Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco to a competent tribunal. All this in detriment of the right to know the truth regarding those facts (supra paras. 166 and 313). Therefore, as it has done on other occasions,315 the Court rules that the State shall effectively and with the proper due diligency carry out the investigation and, if it were the case, the criminal proceedings that are in process with Comptroller”), supra note 139, para. 108, and Case of Dacosta Cadogan v. Barbados, supra note 43, para. 94. 314 Cf. Case of Aloeboetoe et al. v. Surinam. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 10, 1993. Series C No. 15, para. 44; Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller”), supra note 139, para. 108, and Case of Dacosta Cadogan v. Barbados, supra note 43, para. 94. 315 Cf. Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 24, para. 174; Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, supra note 40, para. 191, and Case of Garibaldi v. Brazil, supra note 32, para. 169.