62. Based on the violations declared in the preceding chapter, this Court will proceed to examine 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 case law of the Court as regards the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparation, in order to establish measures to redress the harm caused to the victims.91 63. International case law, in particular that of the Court, has repeatedly establish that the judgment constitutes, per se, a form of reparation.92 However, in view of the circumstances of this case and the suffering caused to the victim by the violations committed, the Court deems it pertinent to establish other measures. A. Injured party 64. The Court reiterates that, pursuant to Article 63(1) of the Convention, the injured party is considered those declared the victims of the violation of any right recognized therein. Therefore, this Court considers Oscar Gorigoitíaas the “injured party” and, as victim of the violations declared in Chapter VIII of this judgment, he will be considered the beneficiary of the reparations ordered by the Court. B. Measures of restitution and satisfaction, and guarantees of non-repetition B.1 Measures of restitution 65. The Commission asked that the state order the necessary measures so that, should he wish to, Mr. Gorigoitía can file an appeal for a comprehensive review of the conviction, in compliance with Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention. The representatives asked that Mr. Gorigoitía's conviction be annulled. They also requested that his dismissal from the police force be annulled and, therefore, that he be granted the corresponding retirement benefits and social security for his wife and son. In addition to this, they asked that the sentence handed down against Mr. Gorigoitía be removed from his record. The state did not explicitly address these measures of reparation, but reported that under the provisions of “Settlement 28,677” of March 15, 2018, the Supreme Court of Justice of Mendoza had offered Mr. Gorigoitía the opportunity to file an appeal with the purpose of challenging the conviction and obtaining a broad review of it. 66. The Court reiterates its case law in that it does not act as a criminal appeals court93 and therefore is not competent to decide on the guilt or innocence of Mr. Gorigoitía. Instead, it has limited itself to determining whether criminal proceedings and the judicial remedies to which they are subjected are compatible with the American Convention.94 In this sense, the Court found that the Mendoza Supreme Court’s failure to conduct a comprehensive review of Mr. Gorigoitía's conviction amounted to a violation of Article 8.2.h) of the Convention (supra paras. 47 to 53). Likewise, the Court takes note that the state offered Mr. Gorigoitía the opportunity to seek an appeal for broad review of the conviction by means of Settlement No. 28,677 of March 15, 2018 (supra para. 65). Based on the foregoing, the Court orders the state to: 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 Martínez Coronado v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 10, 2019. Series C No. 376, para. 93. 92 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 Martínez Coronado v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 10, 2019. Series C No. 376, para. 94. 93 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, para. 90; and Case of Zegarra Marín v. Peru. Interpretation of Judgment of Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 8, 2018. Series C No. 347, para. 17. 94 Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 120, and Case of Mohamed v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2012. Series C No. 255, para. 151. 91 20