223. The Court has established that reparations should have a causal nexus with the facts of the case, the violations that have been declared, the harm proved, and the measures requested to redress the respective harm. The Court must observe the concurrence of these elements to rule appropriately and in accordance with law. 320 224. Taking into consideration the violations declared in the preceding chapters, the Court will proceed to examine the claims submitted by the Commission and the representatives, together with the arguments of the State, in light of the criteria established in its case law on the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparation, 321 in order to establish measures aimed at redressing the harm caused to the victims. A. Injured party 225. The Court reiterates that, pursuant to Article 63(1) of the Convention, it considers that those who have been declared victims of the violation of any right recognized therein to be the injured party.322 Accordingly, the Court considers that Claudina Isabel Velásquez Paiz, Jorge Rolando Velásquez Durán, Elsa Claudina Paiz Vidal and Pablo Andrés Velásquez Paiz are the “injured parties” and, in their capacity as victims of the violations declared in Chapters VII.I, VII.II and VII.III, they will be the beneficiaries of the measures that the Court establishes below. B. Obligation to investigate the facts that resulted in the violations and identify, prosecute and punish, as appropriate, those responsible 226. The Commission asked that the State complete a prompt, immediate, serious and impartial investigation to solve the murder of Claudina Isabel Velásquez Paiz and identify, prosecute and, as appropriate, punish those responsible. 227. The representatives asked the Court to require the State: (a) to investigate the facts of this case seriously, impartially and independently, using the competent organs, and within a reasonable time; (b) to identify, prosecute and punish appropriately the individuals who took part, either as masterminds or perpetrators, in the murder of Claudina Velásquez, and (c) to investigate and apply the sanctions corresponding to the function-related offenses committed by the public officials in charge of investigating the facts of this case. 228. The State asserted that all the investigative procedures conduced had been aimed at identifying the person or persons responsible for the presumed victim’s death, so that, in the near future, it hoped to achieve positive results. It reiterated that the investigation had been continuous, opportune, immediate, serious and impartial from the time of the processing of the crime scene and up until the present and that, regardless of the way in which the Commission had assessed them, the investigation procedures were those that the State was able to conduct with the means available, and they were diligent. The State also indicated that, even though the procedures conducted at the time of the incident were not ideal, over the past decade it has gradually overcome the deficiencies, taking a series of steps that, today, make the procedure for the removal of corpses and gathering of evidence more standardized and orderly by the creation of the National Institute of Forensic Science (INACIF) and its respective protocols. Lastly, it Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 110, and Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras, supra, para. 288. 321 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, supra, paras. 25 to 27, and Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras, supra, para. 289. 322 Cf. Case of the La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 233, and Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras, supra, para. 290. 320 76