257. Based on the State’s partial acknowledgment of responsibility and the findings concerning this acknowledgment, as well as those on the merits and the violations of the American Convention declared in the preceding chapters, the Court will proceed to analyze the claims submitted by the Commission and the representative, as well as the State’s arguments, in light of the criteria established in the Court’s case law on the nature and scope of the obligation to repair,248 in order to determine measures aimed at repairing the harm caused to the victims. A) Injured Party 258. The Court reiterates that, in the terms of Article 63(1) of the Convention, the injured party is considered to be those who have been declared victims of the violation of any right recognized therein. Therefore, this Court considers Luis Gonzalo Vélez Restrepo, his wife, Aracelly Román Amariles, and their children Mateo and Juliana Vélez Román, the “injured party” and, in their capacity as victims of the violations declared in chapters IX, X and XI, they will be considered beneficiaries of the reparations ordered by the Court. B) Measures of integral reparation: restitution, rehabilitation satisfaction, guarantee of non-repetition, and obligation to investigate and 259. The Court will determine other measures that seek to repair the non-pecuniary damage and will order measures of a public scope or repercussion. 249 International case law, and particularly that of the Court, has repeatedly established that the judgment constitutes per se a form of reparation.250 Nevertheless, considering the circumstances of the case sub judice, and based on the harm to Mr. Vélez Restrepo, Mrs. Román Amariles, and their children Mateo and Juliana Vélez Román, as well as the consequences of a nonpecuniary nature arising from the violations to the Convention declared to their detriment, the Court finds it pertinent to establish measures of restitution, rehabilitation, and satisfaction, as well as guarantees of non-repetition. B.1) Restitution: guarantee the conditions for the return of the Vélez Román family to Colombia 260. The Commission asked the Court to order the State “to adopt the necessary measures to protect and safeguard the safety of the Vélez Román family should they decide to return to Colombia on either a temporary or permanent basis.” 261. In this regard, the State argued that it had not failed to comply with the said recommendation made by the Commission in its Merits Report, since it has expressed “[i]ts absolute commitment to provide Luis Gonzalo Vélez and his family with the necessary safety measures should they consider returning to Colombia.” Colombia underscored that this measure is subject to the Vélez Román family “expressing its interest in returning to the country” and that, once they do so, “the State will activate the relevant mechanisms established in [its] laws.” Hence, Colombia asked that “compliance with this 248 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, paras. 25 and 26, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. Merits and reparations, para. 283. 249 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of May 26, 2001. Series C No. 77, para. 84, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. Merits and reparations, para. 285. 250 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 the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. Merits and reparations, para. 285. 75