73 Ombudsman’s Office in order to report the lack of response from the different authorities to which he had resorted in his search for justice for what happened to his brother and his father.” However, the Commission did not make any allegation in this regard. 230. The Court considers that the representatives’ allegation is too general and lacks of enough foundation as to allow the Court to rule on the alleged violation. Consequently, the Court will not rule on this issue. IX REPARATIONS (Application of Article 63(1) of the Convention) 231. Basing on that stablished in article 63(1) of the American Convention, the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has produced damage entails the obligation to repair this adequately,261 and that this provision “embodies a customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility.”262 In this chapter, the Court will examine the relevant claims presented by the Inter-American Commission and the representatives, as well as the arguments submitted by the State in this regard, in order to rule on measures intended to repair the damage caused to the victims. A. Injured party 232. Under Article 63(1) of the American Convention, the injured party is considered to be the person who has been declared a victim of the violation of any right embodied therein. As established in the preceding chapters, in the instant case the victims are: Messrs. Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas, José Luis Ibsen Peña, Martha Castro Mendoza, Rebeca Ibsen Castro, Tito Ibsen Castro and Raquel Ibsen Castro (supra paras. 122, 133 and 226); consequently, they will be considered beneficiaries of the reparations ordered by this Court. B. Obligation to investigate the facts and to identify, prosecute and, if applicable, punish those responsible 233. The Commission argued that the State should “investigate with due diligence, seriously, impartially and thoroughly, the forced disappearance of Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas and José Luis Ibsen Peña, in order to clarify the historic truth of the facts and to prosecute and punish all those responsible,” both intellectual actors and perpetrators. It stressed that the domestic proceedings should be held “based on the crime of forced disappearance,” which is not subject to the statute of limitations. Likewise, it indicated that the State should “provide information on the results” of said investigations, and that “the next of kin of the victims should have full access and capacity to act at all stages [of the proceedings] […], pursuant to domestic law and the provisions of the American Convention.” Finally, the Commission asked the Court to order that the results of the said proceedings be publicized. 261 Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7. para. 25; Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra note 6, para. 227, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra note 6, para. 211. 262 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán-Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 26, 2001. Series C No. 77, para. 62; Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra note 6, para. 227, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra note 6, para. 211.