20. In view of this, they argue that the alleged victim was in a situation of limitations being imposed on his personal liberty that was considered by the legislator in drafting Law No. 24,043, insofar as that law establishes that “house arrest or release under surveillance shall not be considered as a cessation of the measure.” 4 They argue that the State, through its legislation and through its judicial organs, does not protect all persons equally, as it adopts different criteriawhen dealing with like cases. 21. They argue that since the judgment in the Robasto case the Secretariat for Human Rights modified its criterion for interpreting the scope of Law No. 24,043, including as compensable those cases of “release under surveillance” ordered by a competent authority, apparently in keeping with the law. They argue that in two similar cases 5favorable orders have been issued by the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights (hereinafter “Ministry of Justice”). 22. They argue that as of this change, Mr. Almeida made several petitions to the Ministry of Justice, December 27, 2004, amended March 28, 2006; and before the Special Representative for Human Rights in the International Area of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (hereinafter “Representative of Foreign Affairs”), on October 31, 2006, to amend the order of the administration so as to adapt it to the new criteria bring applied to identical situations. He alleges that the Minister of Justice issued Resolution No. 1243/2006 rejecting the request, considering that a modification of the judicial decision was being sought. 23. They indicated that the Representative of Foreign Affairs, for his part, answered that he did not have instructions that enable him to settle the matter in the international arena, whereas in the domestic sphere jurisdiction lies with the Ministry of Justice. B. The State’s position 24. By way of background the State argues that in 1980 a group of persons who were detained upon orders of the Executive and their judicial claims were not satisfied as the action prescribed. Having exhausted domestic remedies, they filed a petition with the IACHR. In the context of these petitions a friendly settlement was achieved that was reflected in decree No. 70/91, which enshrined an equitable solution for the petitioners and for all those who were in the same legal situation. The State makes reference to the group of cases contained in Report No. 1/93, which reports on a friendly settlement. 6 25. It argues that the benefit provided for in that decree covered all those who were detained upon orders of the Executive, up until December 10, 1983, who had begun an action for damages before December 10, 1985,and in respect of whom the action was declared prescribed by firm judgment, and for those whose proceedings were already under way. 26. The State notes that this was the first friendly settlement in the Inter-American human rights system (Report No. 1/93). It provided that one-thirtieth of the monthly remuneration of Level A civil servants be paid (SINAPA Decree No. 993/91) for each day that the measure causing the deprivation of liberty lasted. 27. It indicates that Law No. 24,043 expanded the spectrum of beneficiaries by taking in those who had been subjected to limitations of their liberty under the Executive up until December 10, 1983 and those who had suffered detention, by virtue of the acts that emanated from military tribunals, whether or not they had initiated an action for damages, so long as they had not received any compensation whatsoever pursuant to the judicial judgment for the same case. 4 The petitioners cite the third paragraph of Article 4 of the Law. The petitioners cite the cases of Eruli de Guillén, Gilberto Rengel Ponce (File No. 377068195) and Juan AgustínGuillén (FileNo. 377031195). 5 IACHR, Report No. 1/93 with respect to cases 10,288, 10,310, 10,436, 10,496 10,631, and 10,771, Friendly Settlement, Argentina, March 3, 1993. 6