13. The State argued that Article 9 of Law 24.043 establishes that “payment of the benefit implies relinquishment of all rights to indemnification for damages arising from deprivation of freedom, arrest, being kept under executive custody, death, or physical injury and shall exclude all other benefits or indemnification for the same cause.” It contended that the petitioners are unable to claim any additional payment, since all the individuals who have received indemnification were prevented from working or practicing their trade, industry, or profession and, consequently, from receiving payment for the same cause. 14. In regard to the failure to pay lost wages to Mrs. Perrone and Mr. Preckel, the State claimed that the administrative and judicial decisions were in keeping with due process and were based on application of domestic law. It explained that the proceeding brought by them was based on the Regulation on Investigations of Public Servants – Decree No. 1798/80. It noted that Article 39 of said Regulation provides that earnings are not to be paid when the suspension arises from actions unrelated to work. It argued that, consequently, the decisions followed the law in force at the time and the legal precedents of Argentine courts, which upheld that “no payment shall apply when there has been no legal consideration [provided in exchange].” 15. The State further alleged that in the admissibility stage, Mrs. Perrone and Mr. Preckel should have filed a suit for damages arising from the detention and subsequent removal from their jobs. It contended that under this remedy, they could have included the claims put forward in this case. 16. Additionally, the State argued that Mrs. Perrone and Mr. Preckel are entitled, without any time constraint imposed by the statute of limitations, to request recognition of the period of inactivity for purposes of retirement pension claims. It indicated that they are precluded from claiming any payment of lost earnings, because there was no legal consideration given in exchange by them. IV. PROVEN FACTS A. Detention of Elba Clotilde Perrone and Juan José Preckel in 1976 17. The facts described in this section were acknowledged by the Argentine State. In early July 1976, Elba Clotilde Perrone and Juan José Preckel were employees at the General Tax Directorate (DGI, from its Spanish initials), which at the time was under the Secretariat of the Treasury.3 The General Tax Directorate is the agency of the Argentine State in charge of the enforcement, collection, receipt and oversight of taxation.4 18. On July 6, 1976, a group of individuals dressed in civilian attire entered the residences of Mrs. Perrone and Mr. Preckel, in the city of Mar del Plata, Province of Buenos Aires.5 Based on the testimonies of Mrs. Perrone and Mr. Preckel, they were beaten by these individuals and accused of being “subversives” and of “endangering national security.”6 19. Both of them were held in detention at different police and military facilities until March 18, 1977.7 According to their testimonies, they were subjected to different forms of torture, such as electric shocks to the genitals, mouth and chest; beatings; death threats by simulated firing squad; as well as a lack of food and medical care.8 3 Initial petitions. State’s communication of October 31, 1997. 4 Federal Administration of Public Revenue. Available at: https://www.afip.gob.ar/impositivaDefault.asp 5 Initial petitions. State’s communication of October 31, 1997. 6 Testimony of Elba Clotilde Perrone. Annex 1 to initial petition on Elba Clotilde Perrone. 7 Initial petitions. State’s communication of October 31, 1997. 8 Testimony of Elba Clotilde Perrone. Annex 1 to initial petition on Elba Clotilde Perrone. 3