the damages arising from the illegal arrests, prolonged detention, and forced exile suffered by the victims might have prospered; however, the judge also noted that he could not resolve that action, since that would have implied an undue application of the principle of jura novit curia [the court knows the laws]. He went on to say that the events that led to their absence from work were eminently political in nature, and so therefore the General Tax Directorate could not be held responsible for them. 14. Appeals against this decision made by Preckel and Perrone had two different outcomes. In Mr. Preckel’s case, the appeals chamber upheld the first-instance judgment because “payment of wages for services not rendered is inadmissible” and because the rules quoted by the claimants were applicable to leaves of absences and reasons other than those involved in the case. It also concluded that it was not incumbent upon the General Tax Directorate, an autonomous state body, to bear the burden of redressing the harm caused by any possible illegal actions by the executive branch. In the proceedings initiated by Ms. Perrone, the appeals chamber overturned the first-instance judgement and admitted the substance of the claim. 15. Mr. Preckel filed an extraordinary appeal against these decisions and, in Ms. Perrone’s case, so did her opponent. The petitioner notes that the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, in a ruling dated May 21, 1995, and without analyzing the claims, threw out Mr. Preckel’s appeal and ruled that the remedy filed by the counterpart in Ms. Perrone’s case was admissible. 16. The petitioner reports that Ms. Perrone and Mr. Preckel have been indemnified, on an equal and general basis, in accordance with Law 24.043. They maintain that this represents only partial indemnification, in that it covers only the violations of the rights of personal freedom, life, and humane treatment, without making any distinction regarding particular circumstances (education, occupation, etc.), and excludes indemnification for the employment relationship existing with the General Tax Directorate. To obtain the indemnification payment, Ms. Perrone previously withdrew the suit for damages she had begun against the state, which did not cover the lost earnings from her employment. However, she never withdrew the administrative actions, which are the substance of this petition before the Commission. As for Mr. Preckel, he never filed suit for damages but did collect the indemnification in accordance with the law. 5