B.1. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 239. The Commission indicated that, in practice, the judicial remedy chosen by the alleged victims was not hindered by the provisions of Laws 24,411 and 25,914. It added that "the exclusion" of the judicial route offered under both laws did not constitute a violation of the rights recognized by the American Convention. 240. The representative indicated that the special benefits provided for under the “reparatory laws” constitute “fixed, assessed, and uniform sums,” “expressed in Argentine pesos with the consequent […] distortion and deterioration […] due to the erosion from very high inflation and the extreme ups and downs of the economy.” It noted that conceptually and quantitatively, the “special benefits” are very different from the “fair compensation” referred to in Article 63 of the American Convention. It added that, without expressly prohibiting or impeding legal action, these laws make the granting of “special benefits” conditional on waiver “fair compensation,” thereby “clearly hindering the judicial process [...] and amounting to—at least indirectly—a violation of the American Convention.” 241. The State argued that the Court’s temporal competence prevents it from ruling on "the comprehensiveness, sufficiency, or fairness of the compensation" provided for in the reparatory laws, which "displace" any compensation obtained through the courts by virtue of a principle recognized in inter-American case law involving the “ban on unjust enrichment,” prohibiting persons from being compensated twice for the same harm. It indicated that the Commission and the representative criticized the laws for their “flat rate” formula, but did not demonstrate that the amounts “fail to meet the standards of justice, comprehensiveness, or suitability.” It asked that the Court find that Argentina is not responsible for the alleged violations. B.2. Considerations of the Court 242. The Court recalls that in its case law, it has held that any violation of a human right “that results in harm creates a duty to make adequate reparation.” 269 The right to reparation is thus an essential principle of international human rights law. 270 Likewise, the Court has outlined the different measures of reparation available to redress damage comprehensively, enabling the construction of a jurisprudential framework for measures of restitution, rehabilitation, satisfaction, guarantees of non-repetition, and pecuniary compensation. 243. Regarding the latter and as it relates to the arguments in the instant case, the Court has indicated that, in principle, measures of reparation are individual in nature, but this can vary when States are forced to provide mass reparations to numerous victims, greatly exceeding the capacities and possibilities of domestic courts. In such scenarios, administrative reparation programs constitute one of the legitimate ways of observing the right to reparations. In such contexts, reparations must be understood together with other measures of truth and justice, 271 as long as they meet a series of requirements associated, among other things, with Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, pars. 24 and 25, and Case of Garzón Guzmán et al. v. Ecuador, supra, par. 95. 270 Cf. Inter alia, United Nations General Assembly, Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, resolution 40/34 of November 29, 1985; United Nations General Assembly, Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law, A/RES/60/147, March 21, 2006; and Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of nonrecurrence, Fabián Salvioli, UN Doc. A/HRC/42/45, July 11, 2019, par. 25. 271 Cf. United Nations General Assembly, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence, Pablo de Greiff, UN Doc. A/69/518, October 14, 2014, par. 83. 269 63