6 the United Kingdom under which benefits of this kind would be afforded to exiled Chileans residing in the UK. The petitioners allege that the State should sign cooperation agreements with other countries, as it did in the case of Argentina, so that Chileans living in exile have access to reparations measures that include medical and psychological treatment. They also argue how important it would be if the educational benefits could be passed down to one’s children, since the torture victims are adults and most are not in any mental condition to undertake academic study. The petitioners also contend that unlike the case of Almonacid Arellano, the next of kin of García Lucero –or at least his wife, who since 1975 has had to devote herself entirely to his care-, has not received any monetary, health or education benefits. 23. The petitioners contend that as a result of the torture the alleged victim suffered, his health continues to deteriorate. They also point out that the British Health System is not able to provide him with either the medical treatment he needs for his back problem or psychological treatment. The petitioners attach psychiatric evaluations of the alleged victim and his wife, carried out in the United Kingdom in 2007, stating their frail mental health as a result of the facts alleged. Those reports state that until the present case is resolved, any treatment the alleged victim might receive would be useless. 24. The petitioners maintain that Mr. García Lucero is vulnerable on two fronts: on the one hand, he is a survivor of torture living in a foreign country; on the other, he has a permanent disability that prevents him from working. The petitioners also make reference to the consequences that the alleged victim suffers as a person in exile (a breaking-off with one’s country of origin, a break of family ties, the expenses and burdens of moving to another country, the fact that the United Kingdom is far from Chile, the problems created by having to live in a country that speaks a language different from one’s own). These problems have allegedly inflicted harm that has not been properly redressed. The petitioners acknowledge the policies the State has adopted for persons returning from exile, but point out that Mr. García Lucero is elderly, in frail health, vulnerable and fearful of becoming the target of persecution; all of which are factors that prevent Mr. García Lucero from returning to his home country. As for the disability caused by the torture, the alleged victim alleges that he cannot work or learn English, which means that he and his family limited financial resources. 25. In their arguments on the merits, the petitioners contend that impunity and the inability to obtain adequate and timely compensation constitute inhuman and degrading treatment to the detriment of Mr. García Lucero and his wife, in violation of Article 5 of the American Convention. B. The State 26. The State argues that this case is solely about the facts that have been alleged with respect to reparations, and not about those concerning the harm done to Mr. García Lucero as a result of the torture of which he was victim during the military dictatorship or the implementation of Amnesty Decree Law 2191. According to the State, the torture and implementation of Decree Law 2191 are not within the Commission’s competence ratione temporis. It also contends that the petitioners have not filed any complaint or suit in Chile alleging that the alleged victims were denied justice by virtue of the existence of Decree Law 2191 or the fact that civil suits are not the proper recourse to obtain reparations. Hence, the State argues that the petitioners cannot contend that the alleged victim was denied access to justice in Chile or that the courts have been manifestly unfair to him. 27. On the matter of Decree Law 2191, the State contends that it is public knowledge that this law “has not been an obstacle to the implementation of reparations policies, policies of which the alleged victim could be and has been the beneficiary.” The State goes on to argue that