willingness to reach a friendly settlement. On May 31, 2000, the Commission forwarded petitioners’ communication to the State and asked it to reply within 60 days. On February 8, 2001, the State submitted a communication asserting that it did not accept engaging in a friendly settlement process. In the same communication, the State provided its observations on the merits. On June 15, 2001, the petitioners submitted their observations on the merits and asked the IACHR to proceed to the merits stage of the matter. At a later date, the Commission received communications on the merits from both parties and duly forwarded them to the opposing party. III. POSITION OF THE PARTIES A. Position of the petitioners 7. The petitioners specified that the purpose of their petition is not for the IACHR to rule on the State’s liability for illegal detention, torture and exile, but rather on it not allowing Elba Clotilde Perrone and Juan José Preckel to collect their lost earnings from work for the time that they were held in custody and lived in exile. As such, the purpose of the instant matter in the admissibility report was confined to that issue alone. 8. By way of background, the petitioners noted that, in 1976, Mrs. Perrone and Mr. Preckel worked at the General Tax Directorate, an office under the Secretariat of the Treasury at the time. They describe that in July of that year, in the context of the military regime, both of them were arbitrarily detained and subjected to acts of torture. They reported that Mrs. Perrone was released in October 1982; Mr. Preckel was released in mid 1979 and was exiled to Germany from September 1979 to December 1984. The petitioners stated that both of them were compensated for these acts under Law No. 24.043 – Compensation for Former Detainees. They explained that this statute granted benefits to individuals who were arbitrarily detained during the time of the military dictatorship. 9. The petitioners alleged that the State violated the right to a fair trial and judicial protection of Mr. Perrone and Mr. Preckel. They contended that, in June 1988, both of them brought an administrative claim for payment of lost earnings and that, after resorting to different levels of appeal, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation denied their claims. They argued that the judge did not rule on the basis of the law and facts set forth in the claim brought by them and that the judge introduced a defense that had not been raised by the defendant agency at the proper time during the trial proceedings, which amounted to an arbitrary action by a judicial official. In the petitioners’ view, this was an infringement of their right to a defense. 10. The petitioners argued that Mrs. Perrone’s and Mr. Preckel’s right to property and to fair remuneration for work was also violated, inasmuch as they were unable to collect wages, or receive other work-related benefits while they were unlawfully held in detention and subsequently lived in exile. They contended that the compensation they received under Law 24.043 did not include payment for the labor relationship they had with the General Tax Directorate. 11. They further claimed that their right to equal protection under the law was violated, inasmuch as the agents of the public administration, who continued to work and those who did not, for reasons of force majeure, did collect their wages. The petitioners alleged that the status of Mrs. Perrone and Mr. Preckel as “detainees” must be considered an instance of force majeure and, therefore, meets the requirements under Article 14.c of the Rules of Leaves of Absence, Justifications and Exemptions of the National Public Administration - Decree No. 3413 of 1979. They explained that this legal provision sets out the rules for leaves of absence and justifications of personnel of the public administration. B. Position of the State 12. The State recognized that the facts alleged by the petitioners relating to the arbitrary detention and bodily harm inflicted on Mrs. Perrone and Mr. Preckel did take place. It contended that under Law No. 24.043 – Compensation for Former Detainees, both of the alleged victims were paid indemnification for the infringements it had previously recognized, and that the payment must be deemed to have satisfied their claims. 2