(supra para. 2(d)). In any event, the State is in the process of complying with various measures of reparation that have been agreed upon by the representatives and that are now the subject of claims before the Court. A. Injured party 201. The Court, pursuant to the terms of Article 63(1) of the Convention, considers an injured party to be anyone who has been declared a victim of a violation of a right recognized in the Convention. Therefore, the Court considers, as “the injured party,” Jorge Marcial Tzompaxtle Tecpile, Gerardo Tzompaxtle Tecpile and Gustavo Robles López, who as victims of the violations declared in Chapter VIII and in the Chapter on Acknowledgement of State Responsibility (supra Chapter IV) are considered the beneficiaries of the reparations ordered by the Court. The Court notes that, according to the representatives, Gustavo Robles López died on November 26, 2015 (supra para. 79) and thus his interests, where appropriate, are wielded by his heirs, Anacely Martínez García, his permanent companion, and David Martínez García, their son.” 202. Notwithstanding the above, the Court also notes that, under the Memorandum of Understanding, the parties agreed to recognize Jorge Marcial Tzompaxtle Tecpile, Gerardo Tzompaxtle Tecpile and the heirs of Gustavo Robles López as direct victims and that “accordingly, the Executive Commission for Assistance to Victims, on the basis of Title Four of the General Law for Victims, will be asked to take the necessary steps to include those persons in the National Registry of Victims so that they might have access to the measures of assistance and care established by that law.” 155 In virtue of the broad acknowledgement of State responsibility and of the spirit and scope of the agreement in favor of the family members of the aforementioned victim, the Court recognizes the agreement in this aspect and will consider Anacely Martínez García and David Martínez García as beneficiaries of the measures of reparations agreed to in the Memorandum of Understanding. B. Guarantees of non-repetition 203. The Commission requested that the State be ordered to adapt its “domestic legal order, including the constitutional and legal norms that maintain the institution of arraigo, so as to definitively eliminate that institution.” Until this occurs, the Commission requested that the State be ordered “to ensure that the justice operators, called upon to apply arraigo, refuse to do so by invoking control of constitutionality in light of the standards established in this judgment.” 204. The representatives requested that the State be ordered to adapt its domestic legal order, including constitutional and legal norms, by definitively eliminating the institutions of arraigo and pretrial detention sua sponte. They added that such a measure is appropriate even though the laws have been modified since the events occurred because the laws have not been cleansed of “the toxic effects” of those institutions and because there has not been a compliance with the duty to adopt provisions of domestic law. The representatives claimed that “as long as this legislative measure is not complied with, the national justice operators, especially the judges, must exercise a control of constitutionality regarding those institutions and not apply them in any case before them, but rather they must apply measures that do not violate human rights, such as justified pre-trial detention and other measures of a precautionary nature.” 205. The State expressed “being open to a public debate on the control mechanisms and restrictions of arraigo after its transformation since the entry into force of an accusatory criminal system.” It proposed “that an open assembly be organized,” which would “include the diversity of positions on this institution with State authorities and with civil society.” It invited the representatives of the victims to participate in its planning. It added that ”the proposal of an open assembly seeks to create a democratic dialogue in the Congress that would include the different positions on arraigo, especially 155 Cf. Memorandum of Understanding for an eventual signing of an Agreement of Compliance of the Report on the Merits of Case 13,016, of February 20, 2020, Third (evidence file, f. 6044). 46