194. In view of the violations of the American Convention declared in the previous chapters and in the light of the criteria established in the Court’s case law with respect to the nature and scope of the obligation to repair, 229 the Court will analyze the claims presented by the Commission and by the representative, as well as the arguments of the State, with the object of ordering the measures that would repair those violations. A. Injured parties 195. 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. In this case, the Court considers the injured parties to be Flora Potasnik, Mónica Raquel Wodzislawski, Marta Odizzio de Raggio, Horacio Enrique Raggio Odizzio, Daniel Raggio Odizzio, Arturo Ricardo Reyes Gaetán, Celia Natividad Sedarri Aparicio, Estela Reyes Sedarri, Washington Javier Barrios Fernández, Washington Barrios, Hilda María Fernández Rodríguez, Jaqueline Barrios Fernández, Luis Eduardo González González, Amalia González de González, Elena Zaffaroni Rocco, Óscar Tassino Asteazu, Disnarda Ema Flores Soler de Tassino, Karina Teresa Tassino, Javier Tassino and Álvaro Luis Tassino, who as victims of the violations declared in Chapter VII of this judgment, will be the beneficiaries of the reparations that the Court orders. 196. The Court notes that there are indications that the following persons have died: Amalia González de González, Marta Odizzio de Raggio, Arturo Ricardo Reyes Gaetán, Celia Natividad Sedarri Aparicio, Estela Reyes Sedarri, Washington Barrios, Hilda María Fernández Rodríguez, Disnarda Ema Flores Soler de Tassino and Álvaro Luis Tassino. B. Obligation to investigate the facts and identify, prosecute and, where appropriate, punish those responsible B.1 Investigation, prosecution and, where appropriate, punishment of those responsible 197. The Commission requested that the State be ordered “to conduct a thorough, impartial, diligent, and effective investigation within a reasonable period of time with a view of fully clarifying the facts, identifying all those responsible for perpetrating or instigating them, and imposing the corresponding punishments.” It underscored that, given the “seriousness of the violations found,” the State “may not invoke the principle of non bis in idem, res judicata or the statute of limitations” to justify the failure to implement the recommendation. In the public hearing, the Commission maintained that the State must “remove the obstacles that persist and adopt the necessary measures to avoid that the cases remain in impunity.” The Commission also requested that Uruguay be ordered to “establish and disseminate the historical truth on the events.” 198. The representative joined the Commission’s request that the facts be investigated. It also asked that the Supreme Court be urged to make manifest, by “logistical, administrative and financial decisions, the State’s commitment to clarify the facts submitted to the judicial proceedings that have been open for more than 30 years, incorporating the necessary perspective of gender.” Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs, paras. 25 to 27, Case of the Maya Kaqchikel Indigenous Peoples of Sumpango et al. v. Guatemala, para. 176. 229 52