will not be considered the end of the measure, as it entails an obligation to—at the very least—check in by phone to report one’s whereabouts.40 41. Based on the similarity of the Robasto case to the situation, on December 27, 2004, Mr. Almeida filed an appeal for revocation of decision before the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights, expanded on March 28, 2006, to request amendment of administrative resolution 2638/96 to adapt it to the new criteria that was being applied to identical situations.41 Effectively, Mr. Almeida indicated that based on this precedent, the Human Right Secretariat modified its criteria for interpreting the scope of Law 24,043 to include cases of supervised release ordered by the competent authority under the framework of a supposed legal order as eligible for compensation. By resolution 1243/2006, on August 14, 2006, the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights rejected the appeal for revocation of decision on the grounds that Mr. Almeida was requesting modification of a judicial judgment.42 On August 29, 2006, Mr. Almeida filed a motion for reconsideration before the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights.43 On September 25, 2006, the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights rejected this motion on the grounds that "rejection of the complaint filed before the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation puts an end to any attempt to seek review of the matter under consideration.”44 42. Resolution M.I. 14 of January 18, 1999, granted Claudia Graciela Estevez—Mr. Almeida’s wife—57 days worth of compensation on being a beneficiary as provided for under Law 24,043. In October 2014, Ms. Estevez again asked to be granted the benefit under Law 24,043, this time for the deprivation of liberty she suffered during the period in which she was subjected to supervised release under the same conditions as her husband, Rufino Jorge Almeida. In a resolution issued on May 22, 2015, the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights decided to grant the benefit to Ms. Estevez for a total of 1709 days eligible for compensation.45 VII MERITS 43. This case addresses an alleged lack of compensation to Mr. Rufino Jorge Almeida for the time during which he was under a regime similar to supervised release. As described in this Judgment (supra paras. 14 to 24), the State fully recognized its responsibility in terms set forth by the Commission in its Report on the Merits. It is therefore not necessary to conduct an exhaustive analysis of the violations alleged by the Commission and the representative and that the State recognized. Judgment of the National Federal Contentious Administrative Chamber of November 28, 2003 in the case of “Robasto, Jorge Enrique v. Ministry of Justice and Human Rights.” (case 143625/2002) (evidence file, folios 77 to 81) 40 Cf. Brief filed before the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights by Rufino Jorge Almeida on March 28, 2006 (evidence file, folios 1065 to 1068). 41 Cf. Resolution 1243 issued by the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights on August 14, 2006 (evidence file, folios 1069 to 1071). 42 Cf. Motion filed before the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights by Rufino Jorge Almeida on August 29, 2006 (evidence file, folios 1078 to 1086). 43 44 1095). 45 Resolution of the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights of September 25, 2006 (evidence file, folios 1093 to Cf. Resolution of the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights of May 22, 2015 (evidence file, folios 83 to 85). 13