103 365. The Court reiterates that, pursuant to Article 63(1) of the Convention, it considers that anyone who has been declared a victim of the violation of any right recognized in this instrument is an “injured party.” Therefore the Court considers that the following are the “injured party”: Marcel Granier, Peter Bottome, Jaime Nestares, Jean Nestares, Francisco J. Nestares, Alicia Phelps de Tovar, Fernando Nestares, Edgardo Mosca, Anani Hernández, Inés Bacalao, José Simón Escalona, Eladio Lárez, Odila Rubin, Oswaldo Quintana, Eduardo Sapene, Daniela Bergami, Isabel Valero, Miguel Ángel Rodríguez, Soraya Castellano, María Arriaga and Larissa Patiño. Consequently, as victims of the violations declared in Chapters VII and VIII, they will be considered the beneficiaries of the reparations ordered by the Court. B) Obligation to investigate the facts and identify, prosecute and punish, as appropriate, those responsible 366. The Commission did not submit any specific arguments on this request by the representatives. 367. The representatives asked the Court to require “a complete investigation into the human rights violations that could be attributed to the Venezuelan State […] to determine all possible responsibilities under the laws of Venezuela.” 368. Regarding the obligation to investigate the human rights violations, the State argued that it “had informed the Court […] how it was ensuring all the human rights of the RCTV employees, responding to the matters submitted to the courts, and the only issues pending related to the nullification of the decision on the non-renewal of the concession, and the merits of the interim measure to protect joint and separate interests.” Considerations of the Court 369. The Court considers that the delivery of this judgment and the reparations required in this chapter are sufficient and adequate to remedy the violations declared and does not find it appropriate to order the measure requested. In addition, it considers that the main facts of this case have been proved and that the different participants in the facts of this case have been identified in this judgment. C) Measures of restitution and satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition 370. The Court will determine other measures that seek to repair the non-pecuniary damage and that are not of a pecuniary nature, and will establish measures of a public scope or repercussion.390 371. International case law, and in particular that of the Court, has established repeatedly that the judgment constitutes, per se, a form of reparation.391 Nevertheless, bearing in mind the circumstances of the case sub judice, the harm that the violations committed caused to the victims, and also the consequences of a non-pecuniary nature that they endured as a result of the violations of Articles 8 and 13 of the American Convention, declared to the detriment of the victims, the Court finds it pertinent to establish the following measures of satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition. Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of May 26, 2001. Series C No. 77, para. 84, and Case of Tarazona Arrieta et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 15, 2014. Series C No. 286, para. 177. 390 Cf. Case of El Amparo v. Venezuela. Reparations and costs. Judgment of September 14, 1996. Series C No. 28, para. 35, and Case of Cruz Sánchez et al. v. Peru, para. 482. 391