Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment Luis, Carlos Eduardo, and Paula Uzcátegui. 240. As to the right to know the truth, the Court recalls that this is essentially included in the right of the victim or his family members to obtain clarification from the competent State bodies regarding the violations and corresponding liability, through investigation and prosecution provided for in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention,279 which also constitutes a form of reparation.280. Consequently, in this case, the Court will not render a decision on the alleged violation of the right to truth made by the representatives.281 VII REPARATIONS (APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 63(1) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION) 241. In accordance with the Convention282 and with its case law283, the Court will proceed to examine the claims presented by the Commission and by the representatives, as well as the arguments of the State, for the purpose of ordering measures aimed at repairing the damage caused to the victims. As to the State’s arguments, the Court points out that it requested a generic dismissal of the claims for reparations and costs made by the Commission and the representatives, even though it also filed specific arguments for some of the reparation measures requested. A.- Injured party 242. Based on the foregoing considerations, the Court considers the following persons as the “injured party” in this case: Messrs. Néstor José Uzcátegui Jiménez, Luis Enrique Uzcátegui Jiménez and Carlos Eduardo Uzcátegui Jiménez, as well as their relatives Yrma Josefina Jiménez, Luis Gilberto Uzcátegui, Paula Yulimar Uzcátegui Jiménez, Gleimar Coromoto Uzcátegui Jiménez, Irmely Gabriela Uzcátegui Jiménez, José Leonardo Mavarez Jiménez, José Gregorio Mavarez Jiménez and Josianni De Jesús Mora Uzcátegui, and therefore as the beneficiaries of any reparations ordered by the Court. 243. The representatives requested that a daughter of Mr. Néstor José Uzcátegui, named Solanger, be considered as a beneficiary of the reparations. In this regard, the Court has stated that alleged victims must be named in the merits report prepared by 279 Cf. Case of Barrios Family v. Venezuela, para. 291 and Case of Gómez Palomino V. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, para. 78. 280 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez Venezuela, para. 291. v. Honduras. Merits, para. 181 and Case of Barrios Family v. 281 In the case of Gomes Lund et al., the right to truth was linked to Article 13 since the Court noted that, according to the facts of the case, the right to know the truth is related to a suit filed by the relatives to gain access to certain information, linked to access to justice and with the right to seek and receive information. Also see Case Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and Reparations. Judgment of February 24, 2011 Series C No. 221, para. 243. 282 Article 63(1) of the American Convention states: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by this Convention, the Court shall rule that the injured party be ensured the enjoyment of his right or freedom that was violated. It shall also rule, if appropriate, that the consequences of the measure or situation that constituted the breach of such right or freedom be remedied and that fair compensation be paid to the injured party.” 283 Cf. Case Castillo Páez V. Peru. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 43, para. 50 and Case of Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, paras. 279 a 281. 60