46. The Court considers Walter Gonzalo Huacón Baidal, Mercedes Eugenia Salazar Cueva, Mary del Pilar Chancay Quimis, Wilson Eduardo Huacón Baidal, Karent Lisset Huacón Chancay, Walther Bryan Huacón Chancay, Wilson Fabián Huacón Salazar, Karla Fernanda Huacón Salazar, Kerlly Mercedes Huacón Salazar and William Huacón as the "injured party," as they are the persons declared victims in this judgment, based on the agreement reached by the parties and Ecuador's acknowledgment of responsibility(supra paras. 18 to 26, 31 and 41 to 44). Therefore, the aforementioned persons will be considered beneficiaries of the reparations ordered by the Court. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is noted for the record that the parties reported that Wilson Huacón Baidal had passed away (supra footnote 6), and the representatives clarified that, "in the agreement [...] the amounts corresponding to his compensation as a victim—because he was widowed by the extrajudicial execution—were directly added to the monetary compensation received by his children.” 47. Additionally, the Court notes that in section 4(3)(5) of the friendly settlement agreement, “Access to higher education," the State agreed to grant measures of reparation for the benefit of Kaite Debora Huacón Franco, Wilson Gabriel Huacón Franco, Ashley Dennise Castro Huacón, Ayleen Alexandra Murillo Huacón and Jostin Randi Castro Huacón, grandchildren of Walter Gonzalo Huacón Baidal and Mercedes Eugenia Salazar Cueva. In view of the State’s acknowledgment of responsibility and the spirit and scope of the agreement to the benefit of the victims' relatives, the Court approves this aspect of the agreement and will consider these persons as beneficiaries of the reparation measures set forth in the document. 20 B) Obligation to report on the progress of investigations 48. As a measure to “investigate and punish those responsible,” the parties agreed to the following: [T]he State shall report annually on the progress or limitations for a period of five years via the Secretariat of Human Rights. After 5 years, the State, through its Secretariat for Human Rights, will prepare a report on the right to truth and work with the victims to evaluate the possibility of keeping the investigation open in the domestic jurisdiction. Additionally, after the aforementioned period of time has elapsed, the State, through the State Attorney General's Office, will ask the Inter-American Court to assess compliance with the measure and will request that the case be closed at the international level. 49. In addition, it was stipulated that "through the appropriate institutions, the State shall coordinate actions to exercise the right of recourse against the public servants whose actions led to the State’s international responsibility in the instant case. This right shall be exercised in accordance with the laws in force on the matter." 50. Consequently, the Court orders the State to take the necessary actions to comply with the provisions of the agreement with respect to investigation of the facts (supra para. 48). Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Court clarifies that: a) the provision in the agreement that the State, when appropriate, shall request the "case be closed at the international level" does not compromise any determination that this Court may make where necessary, within the framework of its competence and functions; and b) the State action consisting of exercising the "right of recourse against [...] public servants" will not be supervised. 20 Cf, in the same sense, Case of García Cruz and Sánchez Silvestre v. Mexico, supra, para. 68. 13