as satisfaction, restitution, rehabilitation, and guarantees of non-repetition have special relevance due to the severity of the harm caused. 212 125. The Court has also established that reparations must have a causal nexus with the facts of the case, the violations declared, the damage proven, and the measures requested to redress the respective harm. Consequently, the Court must analyze the concurrence of these factors in order to rule appropriately and according to the law. 213 126. Taking into account the violations of the American Convention and the InterAmerican Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture declared in the previous chapter, and in light of the criteria established in its case law in relation to the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparation, 214 the Court will now examine the claims presented by the Commission and the representative, as well as the arguments of the State, for the purpose of ordering measures to redress the harm caused to the victim. A. Injured party 127. Pursuant to Article 63(1) of the Convention, this Court considers an injured party anyone who has been declared the victim of a violation of any right recognized therein. Therefore, this Court considers Mr. Jorge Luis López Sosa an “injured party” who, as the victim of the violations declared in Chapter VI of this judgment, will be the beneficiary of the reparations ordered by the Court. B. Duty to investigate 128. The Commission asked the State to continue the criminal investigation ex officio, diligently, effectively and within a reasonable period of time, in order to clarify the facts of the torture claims made by Mr. López and identify “all possible responsibilities and impose the appropriate sanctions.” 129. The representative asked the State to deliver a final judgment within a reasonable period of time in order to impose the appropriate sanctions on those responsible for the acts of torture and other crimes committed to the detriment of Mr. López Sosa. 130. The State argued that the body authorized to investigate the case, the Public Prosecution Service, had diligently and impartially fulfilled its duty to investigate and determine who was criminally responsible for the alleged acts of torture committed against Mr. López. It reiterated that the investigative stage had concluded, and no one had questioned the “objectivity or credibility” of the investigative work of the Public Prosecution Service. 131. The Court determined that the State had violated the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection by failing to fulfill its duty to investigate the facts of the case with due diligence and proceed to the trial stage of the criminal proceedings within a Cf. Case of the Las Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, supra, para. 226, and Case of Olivera Fuentes v. Peru, supra, para. 131. 213 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 110, and Case of Olivera Fuentes v. Peru, supra, para. 132. 214 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, supra, paras. 25 to 27, and Case of Olivera Fuentes v. Peru, supra, para. 133. 212 38