5 torturers as that information is being kept “secret” for 50 years. The petitioners argue that this means that investigation and punishment of those responsible, which is part of the duty to provide adequate reparation, is impossible. Law 19,992 ("Law on reparations for recognized victims of political imprisonment and torture") -adopted on December 24, 2004- establishes a compensatory pension and other benefits for those persons identified in the Valech Commission’s report. However, it does not include those persons who opted for the benefits provided under the 1993 Law 19.234, which established the “Programa de Reconocimiento al Exonerado Político” intended to compensate State employees who, under the dictatorship, lost their jobs due to their political ideology. Under Law 19,992, if an individual opted to receive compensation as an employee who was fired for political reasons (“exonerado politico”), he or she was only entitled to reparations in the form of a one-time bonus of three million pesos (approximately USD 5,847). In the instant case, the alleged victim opted for this option (to receive this one-time payment) for a number of reasons, one of which was that under this law he would be able to pass his pension to his heirs. The petitioners contend that there is no reason why persons should be required to choose between these benefits, since the reason for the reparations under the two laws is radically different. 19. As for the reparations obtained for being an “exonerado politico”, the petitioners allege that for seven years the State delayed granting Mr. García Lucero his status as an “exonarado politico”, which meant that he did not begin to exercise his rights under that law until 2000, when he began receiving a monthly pension of 79,776 Chilean pesos (the equivalent, according to the petitioners, to approximately USD 155). The petitioners point out that the amount of the pension is insignificant, especially given the high cost of living in the United Kingdom. They further contend that the State recognized Mr. Garcia Lucero as a beneficiary of the special compensatory bonus of 1,900,000 pesos (which according to the petitioners is the equivalent of USD 3,010) for ”exonerados politicos” under Law 20,134 of 2006. However, the petitioners contend that the State still owes Mr. García Lucero a percentage withheld for taxes, since the amount in question was not subject to taxation. They argue that the alleged victim has had enormous difficulties in getting the bonuses to which he is entitled as an “exonerado politico”. They further argue that the State has not been diligent in this regard and has not taken the necessary steps to ensure that persons in exile have easy access to the information and procedures necessary to claim their rights. The petitioners also contend that these reparations, which are in the form of a pension, have been given to Mr. García Lucero as a result of being considered an “exonerado politico”, and are not reparations to compensate for his arbitrary detention and torture or for the denial of justice of more 20 years since Chile ratified the American Convention. 20. The petitioners argue further that these amounts do not account for the lost wages that he ceased to receive and the lost savings; also that they fail to take into account his disability. The petition states that after further clarifications, the alleged victim was informed that although Laws 19,234 and 19,582 took into consideration the victims’ physical and mental disability, the reasons for those disabilities were not considered in determining the amounts and that the Ministry had discretionary authority to make a decision on the matter. 21. The petitioners also contend that because he was expelled from Chile, the alleged victim lost the savings he had in an account with an association then called AHORRANET, and that the State should compensate him for his lost savings. In response to the State’s contention that at any time in the period between 1975 and 1990 Mr. García Lucero could have arranged to collect his savings, the petitioners contend that he was not in an adequate physical and mental condition to be able to conduct those transactions from the United Kingdom. 22. The petitioners argue that Mr. García Lucero cannot claim the housing, health and education benefits to which victims of torture in Chile are entitled under the Program for Reparations and Comprehensive Health (“Programa de Reparación y Ayuda Integral en Salud y Derechos -PRAIS-“) because he does not live in Chile and there is no international agreement with