an injured party.102 Therefore, this Court considers as “injured party” Lysias Fleury, and also his family, namely: his wife Rose Benoit Fleury, their daughters Rose M. and Flemingkov Fleury, and their son Heulingher Fleury; consequently they will be considered beneficiaries of the reparations ordered by this Court. B. Obligation to investigate the facts 1. Arguments of the parties 119. The Commission asked the Court to order the State “to conduct an exhaustive, prompt, impartial and effective investigation under the ordinary criminal jurisdiction in relation to the illegal and arbitrary detention of Mr. Fleury, as well as the torture he underwent.” The representatives agreed with the Commission. 2. Considerations of the Court 120. Based on the conclusions indicated in Chapter VII of this judgment, the Court decides that the State must remove all factual and legal obstacles that maintain impunity in this case, 103 and initiate the necessary investigations to determine and, as appropriate, punish those responsible for the acts perpetrated against Lysias Fleury. The State must conduct and conclude the corresponding investigations and proceedings within a reasonable time in order to establish the complete truth of what occurred, and identify and prosecute and, as appropriate, punish all those responsible for the facts. Additionally, the results of the corresponding proceedings must be publicized so that Haitian society may know the facts of the present case, and also those responsible for them.104 121. Regarding the investigation of the acts of torture, it is important that the competent authorities take into consideration the international standards for documenting and interpreting the forensic evidence regarding the perpetration of acts of torture, particularly those defined in the Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“Istanbul Protocol”).105 C. Measures of satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition 122. The Court will determine measures that seek to repair the non-pecuniary damage, that are not of a pecuniary nature, and will order measures of public scope or impact.106 102 Cf. Case of the La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 233, and Case of Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay, supra note 9, para. 242. 103 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 277, and Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, supra note 90, para. 185. 104 Cf. Case of El Caracazo v. Venezuela. Reparations and costs, supra note 170, para. 118; Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) v. Brazil, supra note 70, para. 257, and Case of Gelman v. Uruguay, supra note 76, para. 256. 105 Cf. United Nations, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Istanbul Protocol (Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment), New York and Geneva, 2001. 106 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs, supra note 99, para. 84 and Case of López Mendoza v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2011. Series C No. 233, para. 213. 32