V. ANALYSIS OF LAW A. Right to a Fair Trial and Judicial Protection (Articles 8.1 and 25.1 of the American Convention in conjunction with Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof) 90. Article 8.1 of the Convention stipulates: Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature. 91. For its part, Article 25.1 of the American Convention reads as follows: Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. 92. Article 1.1 provides that: The States Parties to this Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any discrimination for reasons of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic status, birth, or any other social condition. 93. Article 2 of the American Convention provides: Where the exercise of any of the rights or freedoms referred to in Article 1 is not already ensured by legislative or other provisions, the States Parties undertake to adopt, in accordance with their constitutional processes and the provisions of this Convention, such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to those rights or freedoms. 1. Prior issue regarding administrative and judicial reparation and specification of the scope of the instant case 94. The Commission notes that the defense presented by the Chilean State focused on reporting in detail on its administrative reparation program and the benefits received by victims in the case. In that regard, the Commission notes that what the petitioners want is not to request an abstract assessment of the extent to which the administrative reparation program meets the requirements of the American Convention. Nor did the petitioners contest the fact that the alleged victims received some benefits from the State within the framework of that program. From the start, the petitioners' arguments focused on what they consider to be a denial of justice due to the application of civil prescription rules to judicial proceedings for reparation, From the proven facts it transpires that the dismissal of the aforementioned judicial actions was based precisely on application of the civil statute of limitations and no reference was made to the participation of the alleged victims in the administrative reparations program. 95. Without prejudice to the above, the Commission deems it appropriate to conduct a preliminary assessment of the State's arguments in order to define the object of the analysis of the merits carried out in subsequent sections of this report. 96. The Inter-American Court has indicated that " “if domestic mechanisms exist to determine forms of reparation, these procedures and [their] results must be assessed” and that, to this end, it should be 18