obligation to make reparations, 162 the Court will analyze the petitions of the Commission and the representatives, as well as the arguments of the State, to set forth below the measures of reparation for those violations. 127. The Court notes that the State asked it to order measures of reparation that are directly connected to the harm suffered and the violations acknowledged by the State and found proven by the Court. It also stated its intention to implement, in concert with the relatives of Mr. Tabares Toro, any measures of reparation ordered by the Court in this judgment. Accordingly, the discussion below refers only to requests made by the Commission and the representatives concerning measures of reparation. A. Injured party 128. Pursuant to Article 63(1) of the American Convention, this Court considers that an injured party is anyone who has been declared a victim of the violation of any right in this judgment. The Court thus considers Óscar Iván Tabares Toro, his mother María Elena Toro Torres, his father Óscar de Jesús Tabares, his stepfather Holmar de Jesús Gallego Márquez (deceased), his sisters María Bibiancy Tabares Toro, Leidy Julieth Gallego Toro, and María Isabel Gallego Toro, and his brother Jhon Fredy Tabares Giraldo to be injured parties. B. Duty to investigate and determine individual responsibility 129. The Commission asked the Court to order the State to continue and facilitate, with due diligence, domestic procedures directed toward an effective investigation, pursuit, capture, prosecution, and potential punishment of those responsible for the disappearance of Óscar Iván Tabares Toro and to carry out these investigations in an impartial and diligent manner within a reasonable period of time with the aim of fully determining the facts, identifying perpetrators and conspirators, and imposing the appropriate punishments. 130. The representatives agreed with the Commission and asked that the investigation be grounded in an approach that takes into consideration the context of grave human rights violations within the ranks of the army in order to exhaust all reasonable hypotheses to find those responsible and bring them to justice. Lastly, they asked the Court to order the State to designate a group from the Office of the Prosecutor General of the Nation to focus exclusively on furthering the criminal proceedings with the aim of identifying and punishing those responsible for the victim's disappearance. In their final written arguments, the representatives also requested that various members of the National Army be added to the investigation, arguing that they had been involved in committing, investigating, and trying the facts. 163 131. The Court has established that the State failed to fulfill its duty to investigate the disappearance of Óscar Iván Tabares Toro (supra para. 94). Bearing in mind the failure to clarify the events, and taking into consideration this Court's consistent case law, the Court hereby orders the State to make every effort to continue the investigations and the ongoing criminal trial promptly with the utmost diligence, endeavoring to close the proceedings within a reasonable timeframe. To that end, it shall open any lines of investigation necessary to identify, prosecute, and, when appropriate, punish those responsible for the disappearance of Óscar Iván Tabares Toro within a reasonable time period in order to determine the truth about what happened. Due diligence in the investigation means that all state authorities are obligated to collaborate in gathering evidence. Accordingly, these authorities shall provide the relevant judicial body, Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, supra, paras. 25–27, and Case of Olivera Fuentes v. Peru, supra, para. 133. 163 Specifically, they requested that the following be added: (a) “as collaborators, all of the members of the ‘Tigre’ Company of Anti-guerrilla Battalion 20, colleagues of Óscar Iván Tabares Toro, who through group solidarity and coercion participated jointly in the facts by not filing a complaint or providing information for the criminal investigation;” (b) “the members of the National Army who were part of the supposed search commission which took steps on December 29, 1997, to find serviceman Tabares. There are strong indications that these military members were responsible for burying his body, thereby permanently concealing the soldier's whereabouts;” and (c) “anyone in a position of leadership in the army battalion and brigade, as well as any officials of the military justice system or of any other entity who hindered the investigation into the facts.” 162 30