order to redress the harm comprehensively; thus—in addition to pecuniary compensation—measures of restitution, rehabilitation, and satisfaction, as well as guarantees of non-repetition, are especially important to redress the harm caused. 216 137. This Court has established that reparations must have a causal nexus with the facts of the case, the violations declared, the harm proven, and the measures requested to redress the harm. Accordingly, the Court must analyze all of these factors in order to rule appropriately and in keeping with the law. 217 138. Bearing in mind the violations of the American Convention declared in the previous chapters, and in light of the standards established in the Court’s case law regarding the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparations, 218 the Court will analyze the petitions of the Commission and the representatives, as well as the arguments of the State, to establish below the measures of reparation for those violations. A. Injured Party 139. Pursuant to Article 63(1) of the Convention, the Court holds that an injured party is anyone who has been declared a victim of the violation of any right recognized in the Convention. Accordingly, the Court considers Geraldo Gomes Pimenta, 219 Maria da Glória Sales Pimenta, 220 Sérgio Sales Pimenta, Marcos Sales Pimenta, José Sales Pimenta, 221 Rafael Sales Pimenta, André Sales Pimenta, and Daniel Sales Pimenta to be injured parties who, as victims of the violations declared in chapter VIII, will be the beneficiaries of the reparations the Court orders. B. Obligation to investigate the facts and identify, prosecute, and, as appropriate, punish those responsible 140. The Commission asked the Court to order the State to conduct and conclude the investigation diligently and effectively within a reasonable period of time in order to thoroughly clarify the events, identify all material and intellectual responsibility at all levels of decision-making and enforcement, impose the punishments that correspond to the human rights violations, and take all relevant steps to protect the witnesses and other participants in the proceedings, if necessary. The Commission stated that an expiration of the statute of limitations for the actions and alleged omissions of the State cannot be invoked to justify the State failing to take these measures. 141. The representatives asked the Court to order the State to (i) investigate the facts within a reasonable timeframe through impartial and independent institutions with jurisdiction and to investigate all those who participated directly or indirectly in the threats against Gabriel Sales Pimenta or his murder (perpetrators, conspirators, and accomplices), identifying, investigating, and prosecuting the suspects; (ii) investigate and eventually punish those who perpetuated impunity by being careless, negligent, or lenient in their duties to investigate and punish those responsible for the murder; (iii) take all measures to protect the witnesses and others as necessary; and (iv) ensure that at all stages of the proceedings the relatives of Gabriel Sales Pimenta have access and the ability to act. The representatives also asked the Court to remind the State that the concept of a statute of 216 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 88, para. 79–81, and Case of Pavez Pavez v. Chile, supra para. 162. 217 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 Pavez Pavez v. Chile, supra para. 163. 218 Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, supra, para. 25 and 26, and Case of Pavez Pavez v. Chile, supra para. 164. 219 Deceased prior to the submission of the case to the Court. 220 Deceased prior to the submission of the case to the Court. 221 Deceased prior to the submission of the case to the Court. 37