regarding which it has been determined that the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies had not been complied with will not be taken into account. 146. Before determining the measures of reparation, the Court notes that, in its answering brief, the State, in general, asked the Court not to admit the reparations and costs requested by the representative and by the Commission; thus, it did not refer to the requests for reparation specifically. A) Injured party 147. The Commission considered that Raúl José Díaz Peña was a beneficiary. In addition, it informed the Court that, in a communication of September 12, 2010, following merits report No. 84/10, the petitioner, in addition to indicating the victim’s interest in presenting the case to the Inter-American Court, mentioned the following family members of Raúl José Díaz Peña: Alberto Esteban Díaz Arvelo (father), Algi Josefina Peña de Díaz (mother) and Claudia Elena Díaz Peña (sister), including a reference to their “physical changes” and changes in “lifestyle” as a result of the human rights violations to the detriment of Raúl José Díaz Peña. 148. The representative referred to the suffering experienced by the Díaz Peña family, who, according to the representative, will “suffer from persecution, harassment [and] anguish for the rest of their lives.” In this regard, she indicated that the State should make reparation to Raúl Díaz, his father, his mother and his sister for the extensive damage caused owing the severe anguish they suffered. 149. In this case, the Court reiterates that, according to Article 63(1) of the Convention, the injured party is considered to be those declared victims of the violation of any right recognized therein. Consequently, the Court considers Raúl José Díaz Peña to be an “injured party,” and, as the victim of the violations declared in paragraphs 135 to 141 of Chapter VII, he will be considered a beneficiary of the reparations ordered by the Court. 150. Regarding Mr. Díaz Peña’s parents and sister, who the representative requested should be compensated, the Court observes that the Commission did not declare them as victims of any violation of the Convention in its merits report, and merely identified Mr. Díaz Peña as the sole beneficiary of the reparations. Consequently, in the instant case and in accordance with its case law,259 the Court will not consider the victim’s family to be an injured party, and will not rule on the requests made by the representative in their favor. B) Measures of integral reparation: satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition 151. The Commission asked that the Court order the Venezuelan State to take the following measures of reparation: (a) make a public acknowledgement of international responsibility; (b) publish the judgment that the Court eventually delivers: (c) order the administrative, disciplinary or other measures with regard to the conduct of State officials that contributed to the violations found in merits report No. 84/10, including the lack of adequate and timely medical care, as well as the delays at different stages of the proceedings; (d) implement measures to rectify the detention conditions at the former DISIP – actual Bolivarian Intelligence Service (SEBIN); (e) adopt effective measures to ensure that those deprived of liberty at the former DISIP – actually Bolivarian Intelligence Service (SEBIN) – have access to opportune and appropriate medical care, and (e) 259 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 98, and Case of Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2008. Series C No. 190, para. 58. 52