55 the Commission and the representatives, as well as the State’s observations thereof, in light of the criteria embodied in the Court’s case-law in connection with the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparations 217, in order to adopt the measures required to redress the damage caused to the victims. A) Injured Party 174. The Commission requested the Court to consider Mr. Anzualdo Castro, in his capacity as direct victim of the forced disappearance, as beneficiary of the right to reparation and it identified his father, mother and siblings as the beneficiaries. The representatives agreed with the Commission in that regard and the State did not refer to this specific aspect. 175. The Court considers as "injured party”, under the terms of Article 63(1) of the Convention, Kenneth Ney Anzualdo Castro; his father, Félix Vicente Anzualdo Vicuña; his mother, Iris Isabel Castro Cachay de Anzualdo (dead); his sister, Marly Arleny Anzualdo Castro and his brother, Rommel Darwin Anzualdo Castro, all of them as victims of the facts that constituted the forced disappearance of Mr. Anzualdo Castro. Therefore, they shall be beneficiaries and shall be entitled to the reparations as may be set by the Tribunal as compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. B) Obligation to investigate into the facts and identify prosecute and, if applicable, punish the responsible B.1) Investigation, determination, prosecution and, if applicable, punishment of all the perpetrators and instigators. 176. The Inter-American Commission requested the Court to order the State to conduct a thorough, impartial, effective and prompt investigation of the facts in order to identify and punish all the perpetrators and instigators. The representatives also requested the Court to order the State to guarantee the next-of-kin of the victim "the full access and capacity in all the procedural instances” and to publicly and broadly disseminate the results of the investigations. 177. In the final oral arguments, the representatives considered it was convenient for the Court to decide over “the specific obligations of the States Parties to the Convention to investigate and punish the crimes against humanity and, specially, the forced disappearance.” Likewise, they requested the Court to recall its case-law regarding the “incompatibility of amnesty laws and other factors excluding responsibility with the American Convention”, since in “November 2008, Bills Nº 2844/2008 and 2848/2008 were presented to the Congress, which constitute a serious threat to the fight against impunity in Peru.” They pointed out that it was confirmed by the witness Carlos Rivera Paz, who informed that "the president of the Defense Commission of the Congress [...] has publicly proposed a new amnesty law for military officers being investigated and accused of having committed human rights violations”218. 217 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Reparations and Costs, supra note 212, para. 25-27; Case of Garrido and Baigorria V. Argentina. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, para. 43; Case of “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) V. Guatemala; Reparations and Costs; supra note 9, para. 76-79. 218 4379). Cf. Affidavit of Carlos Martin Rivera Paz of March 17, 2009 (record of evidence, volume XI, page