siblings had at that time, the high-level positions of those who signed the decree “gave them the anguishing hope that one or perhaps both parents might still be alive.” Given the lack of response to the requests for information put to the signers of the decree and the staff members who would have worked on it to learn the information that led to such a conjecture, the siblings brought a writ of habeas corpus, which was rejected, including all appeals. After the notice of a petition before the Commission, filed in the wake of the lack of a response (referred to in foot note 3 of this report), the then-Undersecretary for Human Rights recognized that said preambular paragraph “establishes a hypothesis that is by no means proven,” with which the petitioner stopped searching for information. 8. The petitioner indicates that on August 26, 1998 he brought a new judicial action against the State (Case No. 24,518/98) for the damages caused the Larrabeiti Yáñez siblings for the expectation created by the negligence and irresponsibility of the conjecture at the fourth preambular paragraph of Decree No. 1025/96. That action was rejected in first instance and on appeal. The petitioner alleges that both judgments lacked sufficient reasoning and did not take into account arguments and evidence presented by the plaintiffs. On September 27, 2005, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (“Supreme Court”) found inadmissible the extraordinary appeal filed based on Article 280 of the Federal Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure. In this respect, the petitioner alleges that this provision is at odds with the rights to due process and effective judicial protection since it authorizes not stating grounds and grants wide discretion. Finally, he indicates that these damages are part of the petition filed in 2005 before the IACHR, which is the subject matter of this report on the merits. 9. As regards the civil case captioned Case No. 14,846/96, the petitioner indicates that on October 15, 2002 Federal Court No. 4 of First Instance for Contentious-Administrative Matters ordered the State to pay US$ 600,000 plus US$ 90,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs. He indicates that in response to a motion for appeal (recurso de apelación), on November 4, 2004, the Federal Court of Appeals for Contentious-Administrative Matters recognized that Victoria Larrabeiti had the right to be compensated in the amount of approximately US$ 3,300,000 and declared that the action with respect to her brother was time-barred since more than two years had elapsed since he had reached majority of age. On October 30, 2007, the Supreme Court found that the action was time-barred in respect of both plaintiffs given that the adoptive parents were in a position to act on their behalf as of 1986, the date of publication of the final report of the National Commission on Forced Disappearance of Persons (“CONADEP”), whose annex includes the case corresponding to their biological parents. The judgment indicated that the plaintiffs continue to have a right to reparation under Law 24,411 and Law 25,914. The petitioner alleges, among other arguments, that “the mere – and hypothetical – knowledge of the CONADEP report was not by any means sufficient to make a judicial action possible.” He notes that at no point does it mention the disappeared parents nor does it make any reference to the annex. It indicates that the voluminous annex that was published separately and was much less widely disseminated than the report devotes only two short lines to the victims’ parents. He notes, in this respect, that “the hypothetical reading of those two lines obviously did not meet the need to know, with a minimum of precision, the constituent elements of any judicial action.” He also alleges that the limitations period could not have run since the forced disappearance has not ceased. 10. With respect to the laws on reparation, the petitioner alleges that they do not respond to the instant case and that the path to follow is not “the administrative procedure with a reparations schedule but rather a judicial action with extensive evidence and without a predetermined ceiling.” In the first place, he indicates that Law No. 24,411 excludes from its scope those who, as occurred in the case of the Larrabeiti Yáñez siblings, have disappeared and later reappeared, such that it only makes reparation for the harm stemming from the parents’ disappearance, but not for the gross violations of which the siblings were the victims. He notes that Law No. 25,914, or the “law on children,” was just passed in August 2004 when there had already been favorable judgments at trial and on appeal in the civil case. Petitioner notes that the siblings’ main concern was to find out the truth of what happened and to determine their parents’ fate, which cannot be done through laws on reparations. He argues that the abandonment of the administrative procedure under Law No. 24,411, which instituted scheduled and limited reparations, as well as the option to proceed judicially, turned out to be clearly the right move and fully justified. Specifically, he alleges that through the civil action it was possible to locate key witnesses and learn a large part of what happened on September 26, 1976, many years before one could bring criminal actions. He also argues that the siblings were victims of other grave damages that go beyond the