the obligation to make reparation, in order to establish measures designed to redress the harm caused to the victim. 223 A. Injured party 215. The Court reiterates that, in the terms of Article 63(1) of the Convention, it considers that the injured party is the person who has been declared a victim of the violation of any of the rights recognized therein. Therefore, this Court considers Leopoldo Guillermo García Lucero to be the “injured party” and, as the victim of the violations declared in Chapter VII, he will be considered the beneficiary of the reparations ordered by the Court. B. Obligation to investigate the facts and to identify and, as appropriate, punish those responsible B.1) Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 216. The Commission asked the Court to order Chile to proceed “immediately to investigate the facts, impartially, effectively and within a reasonable time […], with the objective of clarifying them completely, identifying those responsible, and punishing them accordingly.” The Commission specified that the Court should order Chile “to adopt the necessary measures to void the effects of Decree Law No. 2191 permanently. 217. The representatives asked that “Chile should be ordered explicitly to investigate diligently, to prosecute and to punish the perpetrators of the torture, arbitrary detention and expulsion of Mr. García Lucero.” The representatives also asked that the Court: Clearly stipulate the State’s obligation to investigate, prosecute and punish in the ordinary (not the military) jurisdiction the perpetrators of these crimes; to impose punishments that are proportional to the severity of the crimes committed, and not to use statutes of limitation or any other hidden means of providing impunity. 218. In conclusion, the representatives asked that Mr. García Lucero and his family should be kept informed about the progress of the proceedings. 219. The State indicated that if the Court declared its international responsibility for the violation of one or more rights of the Convention, when deciding on the appropriate measures of reparation, it take into consideration, among other factors, “the causal nexus between the facts that are the subject of the litigation, the violations that have been alleged, and the harm on which the measures of reparation requested are based.” It added that, in the specific case of Mr. García Lucero, Chile “had complied with its obligation to investigate, and continues to do so insofar as possible,” and that he had been provided with measures of reparation. B.2) Considerations of the Court 220. The Court has established in this Judgment that the State violated Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument and the obligations established in Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture, because the State’s delay in opening an investigation into the facts that occurred to Mr. García Lucero between September 16, 1973, and June 12, 1975, which the State was aware of following its reception of the communication of December 23, 1993, was excessive 223 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, supra, paras. 25 to 27, and Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador, supra, para. 162. 70