case, the violations declared, the harm proved, and the measures requested to redress the respective harm. Therefore, the Court must observe this concurrence in order to rule correctly and pursuant to law.237 The Court also considers that the reparations must include an analysis that not only contemplates the right of the victim to obtain reparation, but also incorporates a gender perspective in both their formulation and implementation.238 195. Taking into account the violations of the American Convention declared in the preceding chapters, and in light of the criteria established in the Court’s case law concerning the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparation, 239 the Court will now examine the claims presented by the Commission and the representatives, together with the corresponding arguments of the State, in order to establish measures tending to redress the said violations. A. Injured party 196. This Court considers that, pursuant to Article 63(1) of the Convention, those who haves been declared victims of the violation of any of the rights recognized therein, are the injured party. Therefore, the Court considers that Hugo Humberto Ruiz Fuentes and his sister are the injured party and, as victims of the violations declared in Chapter VIII, they will be the beneficiaries of the reparations that the Court orders. Consequently, the Court will only refer to the arguments of the parties and the Commission that relate to the persons who have been declared victims. B. Investigation, identification, prosecution and punishment, as appropriate, of all those found responsible 197. The Commission indicated that the State should investigate the acts of torture and the extrajudicial execution suffered by Mr. Ruiz Fuentes in a diligent and effective manner and within a reasonable time in order to elucidate the facts comprehensively, identify the perpetrators, and impose the appropriate punishments. The Commission also underlined that, in any future investigations, all the obstacles that had led to the current situation of impunity must be removed and the perpetrators and masterminds of the act identified, uncovering the criminal structures that allowed these acts to take place. 198. Similarly, the representatives asked the Court to order the State to conduct a serious and effective investigation, as described, of both the acts of torture perpetrated against Mr. Ruiz Fuentes at the time of his arrest, and his extrajudicial execution. 199. The State indicated that the petitioners and the Commission had never proved the existence of acts of torture or that the death of Mr. Ruiz Fuentes had been an extrajudicial execution and, in particular, the participation of the State’s law enforcement agents in the perpetration of that act. 200. Bearing in mind that, currently, criminal proceedings are underway to clarify the facts related to the death of Mr. Ruiz Fuentes, the Court establishes that the State must continue with all the necessary investigations to identify, prosecute and punish, as appropriate, those responsible for his death. This obligation must be complied with based on the standards established by the case law of this Court;240 that is, with due diligence and within a reasonable time. 241 To this end, the State must: 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 Gorigoitía v. Argentina, supra, para. 61. 238 Cf. Case of I.V. v. Bolivia, supra, para. 326, and Case of López Soto et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 270. 239 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, supra, paras. 25 to 27, and Case of Gorigoitía v. Argentina, supra, para. 62. 240 Cf. Case of the Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 28, 2014. Series C No. 283, para. 252, and Case of Munárriz Escobar et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 122. 241 Cf. Case of the Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala, supra, and Case of Munárriz Escobar et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 122. 237 46