8 their parents were in detention and medical and educational benefits). The State contends that a total of 1.6 billion dollars have been paid out under its policy of comprehensive reparations. The State also mentions the book titled “Memoriales en Chile, Homenaje a las Víctimas de Violaciones a los Derechos Humanos” [Memorials in Chile, Tribute to the Victims of Human Rights Violations] so that the Commission can see for itself the efforts that the State has made to carry out a reparations policy. 31. The State argues that Mr. García Lucero is among the many persons who have benefited by these reparations. It contends that thanks to Law 19,992, as of June 2006 a total of three million pesos, the equivalent of US$ 5,535 had been deposited in his savings account with the Banco del Estado. On October 13, 2000, he was granted a non-taxable monthly pension as an “exonerado politico” (person who was fired due to his/her political ideology) for an initial amount of 79,776 Chilean pesos (the equivalent of 140 dollars per month), which was retroactive to September 1998; which as of October 2009, the amount given under that pension was 133,059 Chilean pesos (the equivalent of US$ 243). As for the alleged failure to return the taxes withheld on the special bonus for ”exonerado politico”, provided for in Law 20,134, the State contended the petitioners’ allegation and claimed that the amount in question had been returned to Mr. García Lucero. As for the allegations concerning the difficulties encountered in collecting the monetary compensation and alleged lack of access for persons in exile, the State contends that during his visits to Chile, or through the Chilean Consulate in London or family members who remained in Chile, Mr. García Lucero, like thousands of Chileans who remained abroad, could have learned everything about these benefits; indeed, he must have known about them considering that there is record that these payments were made to his account. 32. Concerning the loss of savings allegedly sustained by Mr. García Lucero, the State argues that Ahorranet became part of a single organization called the Asociación Nacional de Ahorros y Préstamos (ANAP) [National Savings and Loan Association], which ceased to exist under a law enacted in 1990. Also that according to the Office of the Deputy Secretary for the Treasury, Mr. García Lucero had the opportunity –either on his own or through his legal representative- to arrange to have these savings recognized and collected while that savings system was still in effect in the country, which was any time between 1975 and 1990. As for the housing benefit under the reparations program, the State reports that given Mr. García Lucero’s particular situation, either he or his spouse could qualify for a State subsidy to acquire housing, provided they returned to live in Chile. The State explains that Mr. García Lucero also qualifies for “additional points” toward housing as the Valech Commission recognized him as a victim. As for the health issue, the State’s contention is that in Chile Mr. García Lucero is eligible for the Program for Reparations and Comprehensive Health Care (PRAIS). 33. In view of these considerations, the State asks the IACHR to dismiss the petitioners’ arguments and acknowledge the responsible and concrete effort exerted by Chile to make reparations for the massive, serious and systematic human rights violations that occurred under the dictatorship, as the Inter-American Court acknowledged in the Case of Almonacid Arellano.