pecuniary compensation, measures of restitution and satisfaction, and guarantees of nonrepetition have special relevance for the harm caused. 661 413. Consequently, based on the violations of the American Convention declared in this Judgment, and without prejudice to any type of reparation that is agreed subsequently between the State and the victims of forced displacement, the Court will proceed to establish the measures aimed at redressing the harm caused. To this end, it will take into account the claims of the Commission and the representatives, as well as the arguments of the State, in light of the criteria established in the Court’s case law in relation to the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparation.662 414. Regarding the general claims concerning reparations presented by the Commission and the parties, it should be noted that a discussion has arisen concerning the sufficiency of the measures included in the Victims and Land Restitution Law to make reparation to the victims in this case. This discussion will be analyzed below in relation to the pecuniary compensation (infra para. 469 to 475). A. Injured party 415. Bearing in mind that, in Chapter VI, it was decided that Article 35(2) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure would be applied in this case and that, consequently, the revised list of victims for the establishment of reparations is the one that includes 531 persons and that was presented by the representatives as an annex to their motions and arguments brief, the Court will proceed to determine the factual issues that, with regard to the victims in this case, have given rise to discussions within these proceedings between the Commission, the representatives and the State, as indicated previously. A.1. Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 416. The State considered, first, that the community as such could not be considered a victim because it did not comply with the respective requirements.663 Second, it advised that on an individual and general basis, there were gaps 664 in the information of the persons who appear on the representatives’ list and indicated the importance of establishing a limit to the descendants of the victims who were legally entitled to receive reparations. Third, it had crosschecked the names of the victims indicated in the motions and arguments brief with other national lists and registries with the following results: (a) Inter-institutional Information System of the Justice and Peace Law (SIJYP): only 28 of them appear in this system;665 (b) CAVIDA members presented by the representatives in 2006 for the request for precautionary measures: this list includes 581 names and only 111 have the same name, surname and identification as those on the list of 531;666 (c) National Civil Registry:667 this only includes records of 472668 of 661 Cf. Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 294, and Case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador, para. 244. 662 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, paras. 25 to 27, and Case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador, para. 246. 663 The State argued that, for the community to be considered a victim, it was necessary to prove: their ethnocultural characteristics, their relationship with the land, and all those socio-cultural characteristics that allow a group of persons to be considered and to be part of the said community both objectively and subjectively. 664 The State indicated the following gaps: 55 persons are not identified, in the cases of 60 persons their identity documents have irregularities; the names of others are incomplete, some have not proved their connection to the events or their relationships and, lastly, some did not give a power of attorney to their representatives. In the case of the family of Marino López, of the 13 persons named, it was mentioned that two were “foster children” without providing any evidence in this regard. 665 Cf. Crosscheck between the final list and the Justice and Peace Information System of the Prosecutor General’s Office (evidence file, folio 16941). 666 Cf. List of supposed victims beneficiaries of the precautionary measures (evidence file, folios 16943 to 16957). 131