36 122. Based on the abovementioned findings on merits and the violations of the Convention declared in the preceding chapters, as well as in light of the criteria established in the Court’s case law, the Court will rule on the claims submitted by the Commission and by the representatives, and the position of the State as regards the reparations, so as to order measures designed to repair the damage. A) Injured party 123. The Court considers that Juan Carlos Bayarri, in his capacity as victim of the violations that have been declared, is the “injured party,” in accordance with Article 63(1) of the Convention; hence, he will be a beneficiary of the reparations established by the Court. 124. The representatives alleged that “the damage caused by keeping [the alleged victim] deprived of [his] liberty unjustly for almost 13 years […] produced […] grave and tremendous additional consequences for the members of [his] family,” who are: Juan José Bayarri (father), Zulema Catalina Burgos (mother), Claudia Patricia De Marco de Bayarri (wife), Analía Paola Bayarri (daughter), José Eduardo Bayarri (brother) and Osvaldo Oscar Bayarri (brother); they therefore asked that the State ensure that they receive adequate reparation. Similarly, the Commission identified Juan Carlos Bayarri’s next of kin as beneficiaries of the reparations requested. 125. Despite this, the Court observes that the Commission did not declare them to be victims of any violation of the Convention in its Report on merits (supra paras. 1 and 2), and did not expressly ask this Court to declare a violation of the Convention to their detriment. 126. The Court reiterates that, in the terms of Article 63(1) of the Convention, the injured party is considered to be the person who has been declared a victim of the violation of any of the rights embodied therein. In this regard, according to the most recent decisions of the Court, the alleged victims must be identified in the application and in the Report adopted by the Commission pursuant to Article 50 of the Convention.125 Moreover, according to Article 33(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, it is for the Commission, not the Court, to identify the alleged victims precisely and at the appropriate procedural opportunity.126 This has not occurred in the instant case; therefore, Juan Carlos Bayarri’s next of kin cannot be considered beneficiaries of reparations in these proceedings. B) Compensation Pecuniary damage 127. In its case law, the Court has reiterated that pecuniary damage supposes the loss of, or harm to, the victims’ income, and the expenses and any other consequences of a pecuniary nature arising from the facts of the case being examined.127 125 Cf. Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Iñiguez, supra note 9, para. 224; Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008 Series C No. 177, para. 102; and case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Administrative Court”), supra note 9, para. 229. 126 Cf. Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 98; case of Kimel, supra note 125, para. 102; and case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Administrative Court”), supra note 9, para. 229. 127 Cf. Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 43; case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison, supra note 30, para. 423; and case of La Cantuta, supra note 121, para. 213.