have a causal nexus with the facts of the case, the violations that have been declared, the harm proved, and the measures requested to redress the respective harm.170 140. Based on the violations declared in the preceding chapter, the Court will proceed to examine the claims presented by the Commission and the representatives, and also the arguments of the State, in light of the criteria established in its case law in relation to the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparation. 171 International case law and, in particular, that of the Court, has established repeatedly that the judgment itself constitutes a form of reparation.172 Nevertheless, considering the circumstances of this case and the suffering that the violations committed caused the victims, the Court finds it pertinent to establish other measures. A. Injured party 141. The Court reiterates that, pursuant to Article 63(1) of the Convention, anyone who has been declared the victim of the violation of any right recognized therein is considered an injured party. Therefore, based on the foregoing, this Court considers that David Octavio Díaz Loreto, Robert Ignacio Díaz Loreto and Octavio Ignacio Díaz Álvarez, together with their family members: Juana Emilia Loreto Pérez, Miguel Ángel Díaz Loreto, Dinorah María Díaz Loreto, Jairo Alexis Díaz Loreto, Bladimir Lenin Díaz Loreto, Octavio Antonio Díaz Loreto, Alexandra Teresa Gualdrón Pernía, Arianna Leaneth Díaz Doubain, José Ocopio, Luz Marina Ledesma de Díaz and José Rafael Ocopio are the “injured party.” 173 B. Obligation to investigate the facts and identify and, as appropriate, prosecute and punish all those responsible 142. The Commission asked the Court to order the State “[t]o continue the criminal investigation diligently, effectively and within a reasonable time in order to elucidate the facts fully, identify all those potentially responsible, and impose the appropriate punishments [… as well as] investigate the other incidents alleged by the family members of the deceased victims and their possible interrelationship. The representatives added that the State should “ensure full access and capacity to act to the family members at all stages of the investigations.” The State did not refer to this measure of reparation, although, with regard to the violation of Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention, it argued that it denied “expressly the existence of any kind of international responsibility for the supposed violation of the rights established in [those] articles,” and asked that the Court “declare inadmissible the reparations requested by the Commission and the alleged victims’ representatives.” 143. Bearing in mind the conclusions to Chapter VIII.1. of this judgment, the Court establishes that, pursuant to the applicable domestic law and taking into account the flaws Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 110, and Case of Ruíz Fuentes et al. v. Guatemala, para. 194. 170 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 Gorigoitía v. Argentina, para. 62. 171 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 Gorigoitía v. Argentina, para. 62. 172 The representatives asked that the following be considered beneficiaries of the reparations: the wife of Robert Ignacio Díaz Loreto, Enmary Dahiana Cava, and also the wife and children of Octavio Antonio Díaz Loreto, namely: Vellanira Lovera, Yohan José Díaz Lovera, Milagros Vellanira Díaz Lovera, Joel Bladimir Díaz Lovera and Yohana Díaz Lovera. In this regard, the Court has indicated that the alleged victims must be identified in the Merits Report of the Inter-American Commission. The persons indicated by the representatives are not mentioned in the Commission’s Merits Report so it is not admissible to consider them as an injured party in this case, without prejudice to the reparations that could apply to them in the domestic sphere. Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia, para. 98, and Case of Martínez Coronado v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 10, 2019. Series C No. 376, paras. 18 and 19. 173 -41-