the representatives, as well as the arguments of the State, in light of the criteria established in the Court’s jurisprudence regarding the nature and scope of the obligation to provide reparation, 240 with a view to ordering measures aimed at repairing the damage caused to the victims. A. Injured party 203. The Court reiterates that, under the terms of Article 63(1) of the American Convention, injured parties are those who have been declared victims of the violation of a right recognized therein. Therefore , this Court considers the following persons as “injured party”: Alfonso Ernesto Albán Gómez, Jorge Aurelio Andrade Lara, José Santiago Andrade Ubidia, José Julio Benítez Astudillo, Armando Bermeo Castillo, Eduardo Enrique Brito Mieles, Nicolás Castro Patiño, Lucio Teodoro Coello Vázquez, Alfredo Roberto Contreras Villavicencio, Arturo Javier Donoso Castellón, Galo Miguel Galarza Paz, Luis Alberto Heredia Moreno, Estuardo Agustín Hurtado Larrea, Ángel Ignacio Lescano Fiallo, Teófilo Milton Moreno Aguirre, Galo Alonso Pico Mantilla, Hernán Gonzalo Quevedo Terán, Hugo Eduardo Quintana Coello, Jorge Enrique Ramírez Álvarez, Carlos Javier Riofrío Corral, Naum Clotary Salinas Montaño, Armando José Ramón Serrano Puig, Ignacio José Vicente Troya Jaramillo, Alberto Rodrigo Varea Avilés, Jaime Gonzalo Velasco Dávila, Miguel Elías Villacís Gómez and Gonzalo Augusto Zambrano Palacios, who as such shall be considered beneficiaries of the reparations ordered by this Court. 204. Furthermore, the Court notes that the representatives of the victims requested that, given the deaths of two former judges at the time when the contentious case was brought before the Court, their successors be considered as injured party. Specifically, they mentioned the case of Milton Moreno Aguirre and requested that his wife, María Ruth Silva Alava, and his daughters, María Ruth Moreno Silva and Ana Isabel Moreno Silva, be considered as injured party. 241 In the case of Estuardo Agustín Hurtado Larrea, they requested that his wife, Letty Mariana Vásquez Grijalva, and his daughters and son, Tulia María Ximena Hurtado Vásquez, Letty Alexandra Hurtado Vásquez and Diego Estuardo Hurtado Vásquez, also be included. 242 The Court recalls that only those persons who have been declared victims can be considered as injured party, for which reason the Court must deny the representatives’ request. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the reparations ordered in this Judgment to the successors of Messrs. Moreno Aguirre and Hurtado Larrea shall be made as specified in the chapter concerning the method of compliance (infra para. 277). 205. The Court shall also determine the measures designed to repair non-pecuniary damages and shall order measures of public scope or repercussion. 243 In international jurisprudence, and particularly in the Court’s case law, it has been repeatedly established 240 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs, paras. 25 to 27, and Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador, para. 161. 241 Cf. “Special power of attorney granted by Mrs. María Ruth Silva Alava, widow of Moreno, and the engineers Ana Isabel Moreno Silva and María Ruth Moreno Silva to Doctor Hugo Quintana Coello”, Twelfth Notary of the Canton of Guayaquil issued on October 4, 2011 (File of attachments to the brief of pleadings and motions, volume II, pages 3087 to 3090). 242 Cf. “Special power of attorney granted by Letty Mariana Vásquez Grijalva, Letty Alexandra Hurtado Vásquez, Tulia María Ximena Hurtado Vásquez and Diego Estuardo Hurtado Vásquez”, Thirty-ninth Notary of the Canton of Quito issued on October 5, 2011 (File of attachments to the brief of pleadings and motions, volume II, pages 2963 to 2967). 243 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 26, 2001. Series C No. 77, para. 84, and Case Artavia Murillo and other ("In Vitro Fertilization") v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2012. Series C No. 257, para. 323. 59