48 220. In the context of the State’s acquiescence (supra para. 25), pursuant to the its findings on merits and on the violations of the 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, 152 the Court will examine the claims presented by the Commission and the representatives, as well as the State’s position in relation to reparations, in order to decide measures to repair the damage. A) INJURED PARTY 221. The Court will now proceed to decide who should be considered an “injured party” in the terms of Article 63(1) of the American Convention and, consequently, entitled for the reparations established by the Court. 222. The Court finds that Juan Carlos Chaparro Álvarez and Freddy Hernán Lapo Iñiguez are the “injured party,” as victims of the violations that is has been proved were committed against them; they are therefore entitled for the reparations that the Court establishes for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. 223. Regarding the next of kin of Messrs. Chaparro and Lapo, the Court observes that the Commission did not declare them victims of any violation of the Convention in its Report on merits No. 06/06 (supra para. 1); that, when preparing its application, the Commission requested the representatives to provide “essential information in order to determine the beneficiaries of reparations”;153 that, in response to this, the representatives presented testimonial statements by Mr. Chaparro’s wife and children,154 describing alleged changes in their lives; that, despite this, in the application it lodged before the Court, the Commission did not request that the next of kin of Messrs. Chaparro and Lapo be considered victims; that the representatives did not submit allegations to this effect when presenting their requests and arguments brief (supra para. 5); that the representatives waited until their final written arguments (supra para. 7) to identify the next of kin of the victims and to request compensation for them; that the Commission, in its final written arguments (supra para. 7), only included a general allegation that the State should repair the “damage caused to the next of kin of the victims,” without identifying them and without requesting the Court to declare the violation of any provision of the Convention against them. 224. The Court reiterates that it considers the injured party to be those persons who have been declared victims of violations of a right embodied in the Convention. The Court’s case law has stated that the alleged victims must be mentioned in the application and in the Commission’s report under Article 50 de la Convention. Consequently, according to Article 33(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, it is the Commission, and not 152 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, paras. 25 to 27; Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and costs. Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, para. 43, and Case of the “White Panel” (Paniagua Morales et al.), supra note 23, paras. 76 to 79. 153 Cf. Note of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of March 23, 2006 (file of appendixes to the application, appendix 3, volume II, folios 517 to 519). 154 Brief of the representatives of April 25, 2006, which included the testimonies of the next of kin of Mr. Chaparro: Cecilia Aguirre Mollet de Chaparro (wife), José Pedro Chaparrro de Aguirre (son), Gabriela Chaparro Aguirre (daughter), Christián Chaparro Canales (son), Carolina Chaparro Canales (daughter), Juan Pablo Chaparro Canales (son), and Hortensia Álvarez Pineda de Chaparro (mother) (file of appendixes to the application, appendix 3, volume II, folios 573 to 580).