customary norm that is one of the fundamental principles of contemporary International Law regarding the responsibility of the State. 359 244. In consideration of the violations of the Convention declared in the preceding Chapters, the Court will now proceed to examine the requests for reparation submitted by the Commission and the representatives, in light of the criteria established in the Court’s case law regarding the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparations, in order to adopt the measures required to repair the damage caused to the victims. 360 245. Considering that the Court has established that reparations must have a causal nexus with the facts of the case, the violations declared, the damage confirmed, as well as the measures requested to repair that damage, it must observe that concurrence to rule appropriately and according to law. 361 Consequently, the Court will not consider those measures of reparation requested by the Commission and the representatives which have a causal nexus with the alleged violation of Article 4 of the Convention, to the detriment of A.A. 246. The Court notes that, in their pleadings and motions brief, the representatives merely requested measures of reparation, without arguing the causal link between those measures and the human rights violations alleged in this case. The representatives did submit arguments in this regard during the public hearing and in their final written arguments, that is, outside the procedural deadline established for these purposes. Furthermore, in its final written arguments, the State presented new arguments concerning the reparations requested in this case. In this regard, this Court recalls that, pursuant to Article 40(2)(d) of its Rules of Procedure, the representatives’ claims, including those concerning reparations, must be included in the initial brief of pleadings and motions (supra para. 5). Moreover, in accordance with Article 41(1)(d) of the Rules, the State’s observations regarding the reparations and costs requested must be included in the answer brief. Consequently, the new arguments presented in the final written arguments of the representatives and the State, respectively, concerning the reparation measures requested, are deemed to be time-barred; therefore this Court will not examine or consider these, except in the case of requests for costs and expenses incurred after the submission of the pleadings and motions brief and the State’s corresponding observations (supra paras. 5, 10 and 11). 362 A) Injured Party 247. In accordance with Article 63(1) of the Convention, the Court considers an Injured Party anyone who has been declared a victim of a violation of any of the rights enshrined therein. Therefore, this Court considers B.A., C.A., D.A., E.A., F.A., G.A., I.A., J.A., K.A., L.A., M.A. and N.A. as “Injured Party.” B) Obligation to investigate the facts and identify, judge and, if applicable, punish those responsible 248. The Commission asked the Court to order the State to “expeditiously undertake and complete an impartial, comprehensive and effective judicial investigation, in order to establish the circumstances resulting in [Mr. A.A.’s] death; exhaustively pursue the logical lines of investigation related to the case and identify all those involved at the different levels of decision-making and execution, and apply the corresponding sanctions.” It also asked the Court to require the State to “[o]rder the appropriate administrative, disciplinary or punitive measures in response to the actions or omissions of the state officials who contributed to the denial of justice and the impunity surrounding the case.” 359 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25, and Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, members and activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People) v. Chile, supra, para. 412. 360 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs, supra, paras. 25 to 27, and Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, members and activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People) v. Chile, supra, para. 415. 361 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 110, and Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, members and activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People) v. Chile, supra, para. 414. 362 Cf. Case of Liakat Ali Alibux v. Suriname, supra, para. 140. 72