3 9. The prosecution of those who must face the consequences of their conduct, under the concept of criminal responsibility, contributes to the obligation to guarantee the observance of rights, according to Article 1 of the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights. However, it not the only means to this end, if domestic law provides others of a concurrent or complementary nature that allow progress to be made on some points of law leading to the re-establishment of the order that has been disrupted and a response to the legitimate interests of the victims. It is possible that progress can be made on the path to justice using these other measures, regulated by national norms, in the understanding that this does not disregard or annul the criminal route, when the latter is applicable and according to the merits of the case. Evidently, the settlement of certain issues concerning pecuniary reparation, although not irrelevant, does not eliminate the other requirements for justice inherent in the State’s obligation to guarantee respect for human rights. 2. VICTIM 10. The definition and identification of the victims, for the effects of the judicial ruling that must be based on law, gives rise to different considerations on which the Court has reflected. Evidently, the victim or injured party is the possessor of the legally-protected interest safeguarded by the right established in the American Convention: life, liberty, safety, property, integrity, etcetera. Thus, the victim is the person who suffers the harm of the respective right. At times, we have spoken of direct and indirect victims. Strictly speaking, there is only one relevant category for the purposes of the Convention: the victim or injured party, who merits the reparations authorized by the Convention that cannot be accorded to other categories of individuals, unless this is by the transfer of rights, a matter traditionally covered by domestic law. 11. When we speak of a direct victim, we refer to the individual against whom the illegal conduct of the State agent is directed immediately, explicitly and deliberately; the individual who loses his life, whose integrity or liberty is harmed, who is deprived of his patrimony, thereby violating the provisions of the Convention that establish these rights. And, when we refer to indirect victim, we allude to an individual who does not suffer this illegal conduct in the same way – immediately, directly and deliberately – but who also sees his own rights affected or violated, from the impact on the so-called direct victim. The damage suffered by the indirect victim is an effect of the damage suffered by the direct victim, but when the violation affects him, he becomes an injured party himself – rather than by derivation – based on the Convention and on the rights established therein. 12. Essentially, both are victims according to the strict meaning of the word; namely, direct victims or simply “victims,” even though the violations that affect them, usually successively, are different. In the one case, for example, the person who loses his life or suffers torture is the original victim of the violation of Articles 4 and 5 of the Convention. His next of kin are, or may be, victims of the violation of Article 5 owing to the severe impairment of their physical or moral integrity as a result of the loss of life or torture. Finally, there may be victims of the aftereffects of the original act with their own entity; for example, owing to the denial of access to justice for the investigation and prosecution of those responsible. The individuals