52 wiretapping, and b) that Mr. Tristán Donoso lacks a legal interest to back the above mentioned requests, inasmuch as they “do not constitute reparations for the alleged damage he falsely claims was caused to him.” 174. On such matters, the Commission held, among other arguments, that the Court has authority to order measures “concerning the different ways in which a State may acquit itself of the international responsibility it has incurred” (supra para. 13). 175. On their part, the representatives argued that the “Court has ordered measures similar to those requested by [the] Commission and by themselves, in the framework of the so-called satisfaction and non-repetition measures[,] after analyzing state behavior in light of the duty to adopt measures to enforce the rights protected by the Convention.” On the other hand, the argument pertaining to the lack of a legal interest of the representatives in the matter is in fact an objection to Mr. Tristán Donoso having the status of a victim. This matter shall be determined by the Court, when it considers the alleged violations. 176. Pursuant to Article 63(1) of the Convention, this Court has ample powers to order such reparation measures as it deems necessary. When exercising its contentious jurisdiction, the Court may order States, among other satisfaction and non-repetition measures, to adapt their domestic law to conform to the American Convention, therefore as to amend or remove any provisions that unjustifiably curtail such rights, as required by the international obligation of States to respect rights and adopt domestic law provisions established in Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention. 177. On the other hand, as it has been recently stated,150 this Court also recalls that, owing to progress in the development of its case law, and following the entry into force of the 1996 reform of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, the representatives may request the measures they consider appropriate to put an end to and repair the consequences of the alleged violations, as well as those measures of a positive nature that the State must adopt to ensure that harmful acts are not repeated. Ultimately, it is for Court to decide on the appropriateness of the measures of reparation that it must order. A) Injured party 178. The Commission listed Mr. Tristán Donoso and his wife, Aimée Urrutia, as injured parties. The latter was included because of the close emotional bond she had with the victim and because "she was deeply affected by the facts.” 179. In their briefs of motions and pleadings and of final arguments, the representatives mentioned Mr. Tristán Donoso as beneficiary of the right to reparation, in his capacity as direct victim of the alleged violations. 180. Although the Commission identified the victim’s wife as beneficiary of the reparations, it did not include any arguments or file any evidence to prove that such person was a victim of some violation of a right enshrined in the American Convention. In view of the foregoing, and pursuant to Article 63(1) of the American Convention, the Court finds that the “injured party” is Mr. Tristán Donoso, inasmuch as he was a victim of the violations of the American Convention described herein. 150 Cf. Case of Heliodoro Portugal, supra note 66, para. 229.