their legitimacy and effective capacity to serve as comprehensive redress. 272 244. The Court has also indicated that the existence of administrative programs of reparation must be compatible with the State’s obligations under the American Convention and other international norms and, therefore, it cannot lead to a breach of the State’s duty to ensure the “free and full exercise” of the rights to judicial guarantees and protection, in keeping with Articles 1(1), 25(1) and 8(1) of the Convention. Therefore, according to treaty-based rights, the establishment of domestic administrative or collective reparation programs does not prevent victims from filing actions to claim measures of reparation. 273 245. The first thing that the representative questions is the concept of “fixed, flat, and uniform sums,” denominated in national currency, with the consequent “distortion and deterioration” due to inflation, which, it argued, characterize the special benefits under the Argentine “reparation laws,” especially laws 24,411 and 25,914, which do not satisfy the content of Article 63 of the American Convention. 246. In this regard, the Court recalls that under international human rights law, measures of reparation must be adequate, effective, and prompt, as well as proportional to the gravity of the violations and the harm suffered. 274 In this regard, the representative's argument, which is abstract and general, does not provide a framework for analysis allowing for an understanding of the specific reasons why the administrative reparations mechanism implemented in Argentina does not comply with the requirements that it be adequate, effective, prompt, and proportional to the specific case of the alleged victims. 247. The representative also argued that the reparation mechanisms make the granting of benefits conditional on the waiver of legal action, for which reason they “hinder the judicial process” and “indirectly” violate the American Convention. The Court would reply that the alleged victims did file suit in the contentious-administrative jurisdiction to claim reparations commensurate to the damages suffered. Their ability to bring this action was not impeded by the dismissal they had received. This is because the judgment that breached their rights did not hold that judicial action was inadmissible. In any case, this Judgment already examined the grounds for dismissal, as it was held to constitute a separate violation (supra paras. 232 to 237). 248. Thus, the representative’s argument regarding the "waiver" of judicial process to access payment addresses a characteristic of the administrative reparations mechanism that has not affected the alleged victims in this specific case, insofar as they have not accessed the benefits and therefore have not had to “waive” judicial remedies, of which they did in fact avail themselves. In this sense, the argument raises questions in the abstract—which do not necessarily apply to the case of the alleged victims—on domestic regulations for administrative reparations. The matter falls outside the contentious jurisdiction of this Court, which extends only to specific cases in which an act or omission attributable to the State and perpetrated against certain individuals is held to violate rights recognized under the American Cf. Case of the Afro-descendant Communities displaced from the Cacarica River Basin (Operation Genesis) v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2013. Series C No. 270, par. 470, and Case of Órdenes Guerra et al. v. Chile, supra, par. 98. 273 Cf. Case of García Lucero et al. v. Chile. Preliminary Objection, Merits, and Reparations. Judgment of August 28, 2013. Series C No. 267, pars. 190 and 192, and Case of Órdenes Guerra et al. v. Chile, supra, par. 98. 274 Cf. 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, Principle IX; 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. 46; and Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence, Fabián Salvioli, UN Doc. A/HRC/42/45, July 11, 2019, par. 44. 272 64