57 Convention.287 Therefore, in the instant case, in addition to the criteria already established, it is necessary to assess the relevance and timeliness of reiterating certain reparations, bearing in mind those previously ordered in the aforementioned cases or, if appropriate, to order again or not order those that are now being requested again and that had not been required previously. 180. Taking into account the violations of the American Convention declared in previous chapters of this judgment, and the considerations outlined in the preceding paragraphs, the Court will now examine the claims presented by the Commission and the representatives, together with the arguments of the State, in light of the criteria established in the Court’s case law in relation to the nature and scope of the obligation to make reparation, in order to establish measures 288 aimed at repairing the harm caused to the victims. A. Injured party 181. Under the terms of Article 63(1), those who have been declared victims of the violation of any right embodied in the Convention are considered injured parties. Therefore, this Court considers that the following are “injured parties”: José Adrián Rochac Hernández, Santos Ernesto Salinas, Emelinda Lorena Hernández, Manuel Antonio Bonilla and Ricardo Abarca Ayala, together with the 35 next of kin named in the Commission’s merits report and recognized by the State, who are listed in paragraph 34 supra of this judgment and who, as victims of the violations declared in this judgment, will be the beneficiaries of the reparations ordered below by the Court. B. Obligation to investigate the facts that resulted in the violations and to identify, prosecute and, if appropriate, punish those responsible, as well as to determine the whereabouts of the victims 182. The Commission noted that “the situation of impunity in the instant case is merely a reflection of a situation of structural impunity in relation to cases of serious human rights violations that took place during the armed conflict in general, and in cases of forced disappearance of children in particular.” Consequently, it considered that the measures related to the investigation and punishment of those responsible “must begin by considering the structural deficiencies already described, including the effect of the Amnesty Law and the absence of investigative and judicial institutions capable of responding to the situation experienced during El Salvador’s armed conflict.” Considerations of the Court 183. For the Court it is evident that the victims of prolonged impunity, as confirmed in the two previous cases and in the instant case in relation to the investigation of forced disappearances of children during the armed conflict, suffer different adverse effects in their search for justice, not only of a pecuniary nature, but also distress and damage of a psychological and physical nature, and to their life project, as well as other possible disruptions in their social relationships, and in the dynamics of their families and communities.289 184. The Court reiterates that both the investigation and the search for disappeared persons are imperative State obligations, and reaffirms the importance of conducting these actions in accordance Cf. Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 153, and Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 260. 287 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, supra, paras. 25 to 27, and Case of López Mendoza v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2011. Series C No. 233, para. 208. 288 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 3, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 256, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, supra, para. 305. 289