41 139. Given that the Court has established that the reparations should have a causal nexus with the facts of the case, the violations declared, the damages proven, and the measures requested to redress the respective damage, it must observe that the co-existence of these factors in order to rule appropriately and in accordance to the law. 137 140. The Court notes that the alleged victim did not submit his brief of pleadings, motions and evidence, but, rather, by declaration of May 1, 2012, decided to adhere to the proposals formulated by the Commission (supra para. 5). Likewise, the Court notes that the representative made reference to measures of reparation in his final written arguments, that is, outside the relevant procedural deadline. In this regard, the Court reiterates that, pursuant to Article 40(2)(d) the Rules of Procedure of this Court, the claims of the representatives, including those related to reparations, must be contained in the initial brief of pleadings and motions (supra para. 29). Consequently, with the exception of those requests for costs and expenses incurred after the filing of the brief of pleadings and motions brief (supra para. 30), these requests are time-barred and it is not appropriate to admit them or make any additional considerations in this regard. 138 A. Injured Party 141. The Court reiterates that, under Article 63(1) of the American Convention, the injured party is considered to be whoever has been declared a victim of the violation of a right recognized in the Convention. As such, the Court considers the “injured party” to be Mr. Liakat Ali Alibux, who, as victim of the violations declared in the present Judgment, will be considered the beneficiary of the reparations the this Court now orders. B. Request for measures to nullify the criminal proceedings and conviction imposed on Mr. Alibux 142. The Commission requested that the State take the steps necessary to nullify the criminal proceedings and subsequent conviction imposed on Mr. Alibux by the High Court of Justice. 143. The State indicated that the annulment of a judgment rendered by a domestic court in the context of criminal proceedings can only be the result of new investigation on the part of a higher tribunal than the one that issued the judgment in question. Similarly, the State alleged that to nullify an investigation, proceeding, and judgment, carried out and substantiated at the domestic level, which suffered from no defect, is contrary to its sovereignty. Furthermore, the State emphasized that, after all, Mr. Alibux was unable to demonstrate that the judgment of the High Court of Justice contained any procedural or substantive errors. 144. In accordance with its jurisprudence, the Court reiterates that it is not a criminal court in which the criminal responsibility of individuals can be analyzed. 139 The application of criminal law to those who commit crimes corresponds to the national tribunals. In this sense, the instant case does not refer to the assessment of the innocence or guilt of Mr. Alibux with regard to the acts attributed to him, but instead, to the conformity with the 137 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada V. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 110, and Case of J., supra, para. 384. 138 Cf. Case of Forneron and daughter V. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 27, 2012 Series C No. 242, para. 186, and Case of Mohamed, supra, para. 160. 139 Cf. Case of Suárez Rosero. Merits. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 37, and Case of J., supra, para. 123.