71 vulnerability will be taken into account in the reparations awarded in this Judgment. Furthermore, the Court finds that the obligation to repair in a case that involves victims belonging to an indigenous community may call for measures that encompass the entire community271 (infra para. 226). A. Injured party 207. Under Article 63(1) of the American Convention, anyone declared a victim of the violation of any right embodied therein is considered an injured party. In the present case, the victims are Mrs. Rosendo Cantú and her daughter, Yenys Bernardino Rosendo, accordingly they will be considered beneficiaries of the reparations ordered by this Court. B. Measures repetition of satisfaction, rehabilitation, and guarantees of non- i) Obligation to investigate the facts and to identify, prosecute, and eventually punish those responsible 208. The Commission and the representatives substantially coincided in what regards the obligation to investigate the facts, and where applicable, to punish those responsible. In sum, they requested the Court to order the State to carry out an investigation with due diligence, on the facts of the present case, so as to ascertain the historical truth of what occurred, identify those responsible, and apply the appropriate punishment. Moreover, they noted that the victim and her next of kin should have full access and means to act in all the stages of the investigation according to domestic law and the American Convention. In addition, they requested that security be guaranteed to the victim, her next of kin, and the representatives in relation to the threats and persecution experienced as a consequence of the search for justice. 209. The Commission added that the State must adopt all the legal and administrative measures necessary in order to complete the investigation in the ordinary forum, forwarding to it all of the prior antecedents of the military investigation. Furthermore, it indicated that the State must investigate and punish all those responsible for the obstruction of justice, cover-up, and impunity that have prevailed in relation to this case. 210. The representatives added that the State must adopt affirmative measures that guarantee access to justice of Mrs. Rosendo Cantú, taking into account the cultural, social, economic, and other obstacles faced and offer the means to overcome them. Finally, they also requested administrative sanction of the public agents responsible for the irregularities verified in the investigation. 211. The Court has established in the present Judgment, bearing in mind the State’s partial acknowledgement of responsibility, that the investigation of the rape of Mrs. Rosendo Cantú was not conducted, to date, with due diligence or under the appropriate jurisdiction, and consequently, that Mexico has violated the rights to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection established in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention (supra para. 162). Consequently, as it has done on other occasions,272 the Court finds that the State must efficiently conduct the criminal investigation into the facts of this case, in order to determine the corresponding criminal responsibilities and apply the punishments and consequences established by law. This obligation must be complied 271 Cf. Aloeboetoe et al. v. Suriname. Reparations and costs. Judgment of September 10, 1993. Series C. No. 15, paras. 96 and 97; Case of the Plan of Sánchez Massacre v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 19, 2004. Series C No. 116, para. 86, and Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, para. 194. 272 Cf. Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 33, para. 174; Case of Chitay Nech et al., supra note 25, para. 235, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas, supra note 25, para. 216.