22 chapter, as well as in the light of the criteria determined in the Court’s jurisprudence with regard to the nature and scope of the obligation to repair,73 the Court will proceed to analyze the claims presented by the Commission and the representatives and the State’s position, with the purpose of ordering the measures tending to repair the damages caused to the victims. A) Injured Party 57. The Court will now proceed to decide who should be considered an “injured party” in the terms of Article 63(1) of the American Convention and, consequently, entitled for the reparations established by the Tribunal. 58. In this regard, the Tribunal reiterates that they will consider as injured party those people that have been declared victims of violations of any right enshrined in the Convention. The jurisprudence of this Court has indicated that the alleged victims must be listed in the application and in the Commission’s report pursuant with Article 50 of the Convention. Additionally, pursuant with Article 33(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, it corresponds to the Commission and not this Tribunal, to identify with precision and on the due procedural opportunity the alleged victims in a case before this Tribunal.74 59. The Court considers that María Tiu Tojín and Josefa Tiu Tojín are “injured parties” in their nature of victims of the violations that were declared in their detriment, and therefore they will be entitled to the reparations set by the Tribunal in their case. Likewise, Victoriana Tiu Tojín (sister), Josefa Tiu Tojín (mother), Rosa Tiu Tojín (sister), Pedro Tiu Tojín (brother), Manuel Tiu Tojín (brother), and Juana Tiu Tojín (sister) in their quality of next of kin will be considered beneficiaries of the reparations ordered, in their case, in relation to the violations that were declared in their detriment (supra para. 54). 60. In their brief of pleadings and motions, the representatives stated that “[they had] received information during the last few weeks of the possible existence of the [c]ompanion of María, [f]ather of Josefa, who should be considered a beneficiary within the process.” 61. The Court observes that the victims of the present case and, therefore, beneficiaries of the reparations, were individualized upon allocating the compensations in the Agreement on the specific compliance of recommendations75 73 Cfr. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, supra note 71 paras. 25 through 27; Case of Yvon Neptuno v. Haiti. Fond, Réparations et Frais. Arret du 6 Mai 2008. Series C No. 180, para. 153; and Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, supra note 17, para. 99. 74 Cfr. Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 98; Case of Kimel v. Argentina, supra note 12, para. 102; and Case of Bayarri v. Argentina, supra note 17, para. 229. 75 Cfr. “Counterproposal of economic compensation” signed by the representatives of the victims and the State on August 8, 2005 within the framework of the agreement of specific compliance of