III. THE PARTIES’ POSITIONS A. The petitioners’ position 7. The petitioners allege that Rufino Jorge Almeida and his wife were illegally detained on June 5, 1978, by members of the security forces loyal to the military dictatorship established in 1976, who transferred them to the detention camp known as “El Banco,” where they were detained and tortured for 54 days. 8. They allege that upon their release by the Armed Forces, Rufino Almeida was delivered to the custody of his father as “guarantor” that his son would carry out the conditions imposed by the kidnappers. They argue that the alleged victim remained under a regime of control similar to the release-under-surveillance regime that required that he receive unexpected visits from military or police personnel at his home; tolerate insults and threats if he engaged in interactions with politicians or human rights defenders; report periodically to telephone numbers of the federal police; deliver photographs; answer interrogations; etc., a situation that is said to have continued until April 30, 1983. They argue that the measure was not justified in any judicial order. 9. They argue that in 1995 the alleged victim filed a lawsuit against the State to pay compensation for the time he was detained and for the time he was under the release-under-surveillance regime, in keeping with Law 24,043. They argue that in response in 1996 the Secretariat for Human Rights of the Ministry of Interior issued its administrative resolution recognizing compensation for the 54 days of detention. They argue that he was denied the compensation corresponding to the 4 years and 10 months in which they were subject to the release-under-surveillance regime. 10. In 1996 Mr. Almeida is said to have filed an appeal before the National Court of Appeals for Federal Administrative Matters (hereinafter “CNACAF”), which in 1999 was said to have ratified the earlier decision, on considering that the alleged victim was not included under the conditions that must be shown in order to be recognized the right to compensation, during the period of release-under surveillance, which would have required a declaration of attenuation of the actual arrest by Presidential Decree of the Nation. In that decision, it is said, it was established that In the terms of law 24,043 the act that ordered the release of the plaintiff should be understood as the “act that is private in nature” to which Article 4 refers, and it should be noted that it is not possible by interpretation to extend the compensation assessed established in the regime of that law under conditions other than those established therein. 11. He indicates that on July 7, 1999, Mr. Almeida filed a complaint appeal (recurso de queja)before the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (hereinafter “Supreme Court”) which was rejected in limineon December 2, 1999, and notified on December 28, 1999; with which domestic remedies were exhausted. 12. In response to the State’s argument on failure to exhaust the action for damages (see infra III B),they indicate that with the return to democracy in 1983, the State did not immediately adopt any provision aimed at securing reparation for the crimes that occurred during the military dictatorship. They allege that Rufino Almeida availed himself, in good faith, of the procedure of Law No. 24,043, in force as from January 2, 1992, with the aspiration of receiving reparation. In so doing, he waived any other type of claim against the State, as established in that law. 13. The petitioners allege that the application of Law No. 24,043 and its subsequent reforms are in violation, in their particular case, on not providing for reparation for persons who were subject to the release-under-surveillance regime, without a declaration of the attenuation of their arrest effective by Presidential Decree. They allege that this deprived them of compensation for the 1,795 days of police and military control. 14. They argue that the provisions on reparation, in some cases, are insufficient, incomplete, arbitrary, and, therefore, that they violate the right to equality. They note that the IACHR is not being asked to