69 caused to the property of the members of the Community […] and, especially, its leaders and authorities.” The representatives stated, in general terms, they agreed “in totum with the claims of reparation for the rights violated […] presented before the […] Court by the […] Commission,” but they did not make specific arguments regarding this measure of reparation. The State did not make observations in this sense. 266. The Court determined in this judgment that the State had failed to comply with its duty to investigate the deaths of Messrs. Oscar Brega, Jesús Álvarez Roche, Jorge Castillo Jiménez, and Julio Alberto Morales, as well as the acts of violence denounced by the Community of Triunfo de la Cruz, in violation of that stated in Articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention (supra para. 253). 267. Therefore, as has been indicated by it on other opportunities, 245 the Court orders the State to open an investigation on the death of Mr. Jesús Álvarez and Messrs. Óscar Brega, Jorge Castillo Jiménez, and Julio Alberto Morales, to determine the possible criminal responsibilities and, if appropriate, effectively apply the punishments and consequences set forth in the law. This obligation must be complied with in a reasonable period of time. Without detriment of the above, the Court recalls that it has been its constant case law that those facts that do not constitute grave violations to human rights are subject to the statute of limitation stipulated in the State’s domestic legislations. 246 However, in this case, the Court does not have enough sufficiently precise factual and legal elements to determine the statute of limitation of the criminal action that could be applied, if it were the situation, to this case, or the conventionality of that statute of limitation. D. Measures of satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition D.1. Measures of Satisfaction 268. The Court will determine measures that seek to repair the harmful effects that are neither of a financial nor pecuniary nature, as well as measures of a public nature or repercussion.247 In this sense, considering the circumstances of the case sub judice, in attention to the harmful effects to the Garífuna Community of Triunfo de la Cruz and its members and the non-financial or non-pecuniary consequences resulting from the violations to the American Convention declared in their detriment, the Court considers it necessary to analyze the appropriateness of the measures of satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition. Additionally, international case law, and specifically the Court’s case law, has repeatedly established that the judgment constitutes per se a form of reparation.248 269. The Court takes note of the Commission’s recommendation to repair the consequences of the violation of the rights stated both individually and collectively. The representatives added that “it would be necessary to consider the customary law of the community affected” when determining the individual and collective measures of reparation. The State did not present any specific arguments in this sense. Cfr. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs, para. 174, and Case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina, para. 344. 245 Cfr. Case of Albán Cornejo et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2007. Series C No. 171, para. 111, and Case of Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 19, 2011. Series C No. 226, para. 117. 246 Cfr. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs, para. 84, and Case of Omar Humberto Maldonado Vargas et al. v. Chile, para. 157. 247 Cfr. Case of Neira Alegría et al. v. Peru. Reparations and Costs, para. 56, and Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras, para. 320. 248