its implementation.275 166. Therefore, taking into account the considerations presented on the merits and the violations of the American Convention and the Convention of Belém do Pará declared in this judgment, the Court will examine the claims presented by the Commission and the representatives of the victims, together with the corresponding observations of the State, in light of the criteria established in the Court’s case law concerning the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparation, in order to establish measures aimed at redressing the harm caused.276 A. Injured party 167. Pursuant to Article 63(1) of the Convention, the Court considers that anyone who has been declared a victim of the violation of any right recognized therein is an injured party. Therefore, this Court considers M.B.S. and S.R.S., 277 the mother and the father of Márcia Barbosa de Souza, as the “injured party” who, as victims of the violations declared in Chapter VIII, shall be the beneficiaries of the reparations ordered by the Court. B. Obligation to investigate the facts and identify, prosecute and, if appropriate, punish those responsible 168. The Commission requested that the Court order the State to reopen the investigation in a diligent, effective manner and within a reasonable time in order to clarify the facts fully, identify all possible responsibilities in relation to the murder of Márcia Barbosa de Souza and the delays that resulted in impunity, and to adopt the measures necessary to remedy the omissions that occurred in the investigation of the other possible perpetrators. In addition, the Commission emphasized that the State could not invoke the guarantees of ne bis in idem, res judicata or the statute of limitations to justify its failure to comply with the above-mentioned measures. 169. The representatives asked the Court to order the State to investigate, identify and punish “all those responsible” for the death of Márcia Barbosa de Souza. They argued that in this case, the State could not invoke the guarantee of ne bis in idem, since fraudulent res judicata would have been established. 170. The State affirmed that it acted diligently in the instant case, inasmuch as it conducted the pertinent investigations, which even resulted in the conviction of the person responsible for the death of Márcia Barbosa de Souza. As for the suspects who have not been prosecuted, it indicated that the proceedings were not initiated due to a lack of sufficient evidence for the Public Prosecutor's Office to file a complaint. It further argued that, even if the Court considers it pertinent to analyze such domestic proceedings, it would not be possible to determine that the State cannot invoke the guarantee of ne bis in idem because the case does not concern serious human rights violations, such as torture or homicides committed in contexts of massive or systematic human rights violations. 171. The Court considers that the State is obliged to combat impunity by all available means, Cf. Case of I.V. v. Bolivia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 30, 2016. Series C No. 329, para. 326, and Case of Guzmán Albarracín et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 215. 276 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, supra, paras. 25 to 27, and Case of Moya Solís v. Peru, supra, para. 113. 277 Died in 2009. Cf. Psychosocial expert opinion of Gilberta Santos Soares rendered by affidavit, supra (evidence file, folio 10337). 275 -48-