considers not only the right of the victims to obtain reparation, but also incorporates a gender and childhood perspective, both in its formulation and in its implementation.314 176. Taking into account the violations of the American Convention and the Convention of Belém do Pará declared in the previous chapter, in light of the standards established in the Court’s case law regarding the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparations,315 the Court will analyze the petitions presented by the Commission and the representatives, as well as the arguments of the State in this regard, to establish below the measures of reparation for these violations. 177. The Court considers it pertinent to highlight that the victim expressly stated that she would not request rehabilitation measures or compensatory compensation. This will therefore be taken into consideration when determining reparations. A. Injured Party 178. 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. Therefore, this Court considers as the “injured party” Brisa De Angulo Losada, who, in her capacity as a victim of the violations declared in Chapter VII of this judgment, will be the beneficiary of the reparations ordered by the Court. B. Obligation to investigate the facts and identify, prosecute and, where appropriate, punish those responsible 179. The Commission requested that the Court order the State of Bolivia “to continue the investigation and criminal proceedings in a diligent, effective manner, with a gender and childhood perspective and within a reasonable period of time in order to completely clarify the facts and determine potential responsibilities with their corresponding sanctions.” It indicated that, within the framework of the continuity of the investigation and the criminal proceedings, the State must (a) take all measures at its disposal to remedy and correct the multiple deficiencies, irregularities and omissions; (b) refrain from invoking stereotypes, and (c) initiate ex officio an investigation into the actions of officers, both medical and otherwise, who directly committed or contributed to the materialization of the alleged violations. 180. The representatives requested that the Court order Bolivia: (i) undertake the capture, extradition, prosecution and subsequent punishment of E.G.A., in order to ensure the victim’s access to justice; (ii) initiate an ex officio investigation against the actions of M.C.A., the then presiding judge of Sentencing Court No. 2 of the Superior Court of Bolivia, who would have directly contributed to the revictimization of Brisa and her family during the trial and to the alleged violations of their human rights. 181. The State rejected the requests of the Commission and the representatives. It recalled that the request for detention for extradition purposes in Colombia against E.G.A. is in progress, so, regardless of any decision of the Court, the hearing will be carried out in accordance with domestic regulations, international instruments and the case law of the Court once the accused, who is in contempt of court, is extradited. Furthermore, it noted that neither the Commission nor the representatives pointed out specific facts that, in accordance with national legislation and the principle of legality, could constitute crimes or disciplinary offenses, nor did they identify the state 314 Cf. Case of I.V. v Bolivia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 30, 2016. Series C No. 329, para. 326, and Case of Barbosa de Souza et al. v. Brazil, supra, para. 165. Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs, supra, paras. 25 to 27, and Case of Sales Pimenta v. Brazil, supra, para. 138. 315 57