12. The petitioner stated that on January 21, 2004, the Supreme Court ruled on the abovementioned petition for cassation filed by the tax authorities, accepting the State’s argument in part. The Court held that although the challenged orders are legally null and void, the property-related consequences of that nullity were subject to statutes of limitation. The petitioner indicated that the Supreme Court’s judgment contained no reference to the acknowledgement that the State of Chile had made with respect to Law 19.568. 13. According to the petitioner, the Chilean State has violated both the domestic law of the Republic of Chile and the human rights enshrined in the American Convention. He specified that while the military regime was in power, the State deprived the alleged victims of their assets without compensation and without adhering to the laws in effect at the time. The petitioner further alleged that during the democracy, although the Supreme Court upheld the nullity of the orders that dissolved the radio station and confiscated its assets, “it denied the alleged victims the legal consequences of that decision; that is, it denied the petitioners their right to fair reparation or compensation.” The petitioner alleged that not only had they been deprived of their property but they had also been “deprived of the radio station in order to silence political dissidence, and because it is not being returned now, we are prevented from once again communicating our opinion.” 14. Additionally, in a communication dated April 15, 2005, the petitioner stated that although the remote factual background may have taken place between 1973 and 1974, the issue is that a State body declared that those violating acts are null and void. In spite of the decision of the Chilean Supreme Court to this effect, the alleged victims have reportedly not been given back the radio broadcast station of which they were deprived. Similarly, he asserted that it is impossible to argue that the facts originate in the time period excluded from the jurisdiction of the Commission, as the alleged violations of the Chilean State—specifically the judgment that denied the right to compensation and restitution—were committed by State bodies through acts that took place after 1990. 15. Finally, it bears mentioning that, in a communication dated January 30, 2014, the petitioner reported that from the time he filed the petition to the present, Messrs. Carlos González Jaksic, Daniel Ruiz Oyarzo, Hugo René Formantel Díaz, and Nestor Edmundo Navarro Alvarado have died. He additionally reported that Mr. Mario Galetovic Sapunar is 83 years old. B. Position of the State 16. According to the State, this complaint is based on acts that took place during the military regime that held power in Chile from September 1973 to March 1990. Accordingly, Chile maintained that this petition would be inadmissible under Article 47.c. of the American Convention, as the statement of the facts provided by the petitioner demonstrates its complete “inappropriateness” insofar as it deals with events that began prior to March 11, 1990, date of the ratification of the American Convention by the State. 17. The State observed that once the democratic government was installed in Chile, Parliament ratified the American Convention on Human Rights. It stated that the ratification instrument was deposited with the Organization of American States with certain declarations and reservations, such as “this recognition of the competence and jurisdiction of the Commission applies to events subsequent to the date of deposit of this instrument of ratification or, in any case, to events which began subsequent to March 11, 1990.” It also stated that “in acknowledging the competence and jurisdiction of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the Government of Chile declares that, when these bodies apply the provisions of Article 21.2 of the Convention, they may not make statements concerning the reasons of public utility or social interest taken into account in depriving a person of his property.” 18. According to the Chilean State, this case would fall within one of the limitations imposed by the Government of Chile upon recognizing jurisdiction; that is, it would be time-restricted, since the basis of the alleged right to reparation originates with acts that occurred prior to the ratification of the Convention. On this point, it stated that the jurisdiction of the supervisory bodies was recognized from the deposit of the ratification instrument forward, with the express exclusion of situations that began on a date prior to March 11, 1990. 3