41 A. Injured Party 147. The Court considers an “injured party” to be, in the terms of Article 63(1) of the Convention, anyone who has been declared a victim of a violation of a right recognized in the Convention. Therefore, the Court considers as an “injured party” all those persons indicated in Annex B of this judgment, who will be considered beneficiaries of the reparations that the Court orders. B. Obligation to investigate the facts of the case and, where appropriate, prosecute and punish those responsible 148. The Commission did not present any specific arguments on this measure. 149. The representative, in referring to its request to order, as a measure of reparations, the “strengthening” of the Human Rights Unit of the Public Prosecutor Service (infra para. 173), also asked that the “Xamán massacre” be investigated. 150. The State did not specifically refer to the request, but among its arguments on the declared violations of rights it maintained that it had observed the “proper behavior [since the investigation] concluded with the conviction of 14 members of the national security forces and with the arrest warrants still in force for 11 persons who are fugitives from justice.” 151. The Court notes that the representative did not autonomously request an investigation into the facts as a measure of reparation, but did so as part of another requested measure, the “strengthening” of the Human Rights Unit of the Public Prosecutor Service. However, the Court finds it appropriate to separate both aspects and to independently consider such an investigation. The Court recalls that, in relation to human rights violations such as those declared in this case, State authorities must conduct a serious, impartial and effective investigation, with all available legal means, that is directed toward discovering the truth and to the pursuit, arrest, prosecution, judgment and eventual punishment of the perpetrators, which is especially important when State agents are involved.212 152. It has been shown that the State, through its courts, convicted 14 persons and decided with respect to the other 11 persons that it was necessary to take actions to determine their eventual criminal responsibility. Guatemala indicated that there are arrest warrants in force for those 11 persons, who are “fugitives from justice” (supra paras. 66 and 76). Given that, for more than 18 years, there is no record of concrete actions to make effective this means of apprehension by State officials, the Court declared the State’s responsibility (supra paras. 88 to 92 and 98). Therefore, the Court orders the State that, in accordance with its domestic law, it continue, within a reasonable time, the pertinent national and international measures to conclude the investigation into the events of October 5, 1995 at the Xamán finca regarding the 11 persons who Guatemala claims are fugitives from justice and for whom arrest warrants have been issued, as well, where appropriate, regarding other elements that might be pertinent. Cf. Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, supra, para. 223 and, similarly, Case of Herzog et al. v. Brazil, supra, para. 243. 212