reparation in order to provide comprehensive redress for the harm; thus, in addition to pecuniary compensation, the measures of restitution, rehabilitation and satisfaction, as well as guarantees of non-repetition, are particularly relevant to the harm caused.492. 453. This Court has established that reparations must have a causal nexus with the facts of the case, the alleged violations, the proven damages, as well as the measures requested to repair the resulting damages. Therefore, the Court must observe such congruence in order to adjudge and declare according to law.493 454. In view of the breaches of the Convention as held in the above chapters, the Court will proceed to examine the petitions made by the Commission and the representatives, in light of the tenets established in its case law on the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparation and thus order the measures required to redress the damage. 494 A. Injured Party 455. The Court, under the terms of article 63(1) of the Convention, holds as an injured party anyone who has been declared the victim of violation of a right recognized therein. The Court therefore deems Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez, Florentín Peceros Farfán, Nemecia Pedraza de Peceros, Jhenifer Solanch Peceros Quispe, Herma Luz Cueva Torres and Edgar Odón Cruz Acuña to be injured parties, and as victims of the violations declared in this judgment, they will stand as beneficiaries of the Court-ordered measures of redress. B. Obligation to investigate the facts in the ordinary courts and to identify, prosecute and, if applicable, punish those responsible Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 456. The Commission asked that the ordinary courts conduct an investigation of the facts concerning the human rights violations declared in its Report on the Merits in relation to the direct perpetrators and that the State conduct the investigations impartially and effectively, and within a reasonable time period, for the purpose of completely clarifying the facts, identifying all of the principals and abettors and imposing the applicable punishments. The Commission also asked that orders be given to take all appropriate administrative, disciplinary or criminal measures in response to the acts or omissions of State officials that contributed to the denial of justice and impunity associated with the facts of this case. 457. The representatives asked the Court to order Peru to proceed, within a reasonable period, to conduct a full, impartial, effective investigation to identify, prosecute and punish all the principals and abettors in the human rights violations, sentencing them in proportion to the seriousness of their actions against Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez, Herma Luz Meléndez Cueva and Víctor Salomón Peceros Pedraza. The representatives added, in their final written arguments, that this investigation should also cover the people involved in the different actions and omissions that had hindered the processes in the domestic courts, and they asked that Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 88, paras. 79 to 81, and Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (the Disappeared from the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia, supra, para. 543. 492 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 110, and Case of Argüelles et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. 233. 493 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Reparations and Costs, supra, paras. 25 to 27, and Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru, supra, para. 302. 494