B. Admissibility of the testimonial and expert evidence 27. The Court finds it pertinent to admit the statements provided by affidavit,13 insofar as these are in keeping with the purpose defined by the Order that required them and the purpose of this case. VI FACTS 28. In this chapter, the Court will establish the facts considered proven in this case based on the body of evidence admitted, the factual framework established by the Report on the Merits, and the State’s recognition of international responsibility. Facts submitted by the parties to explain or clarify this factual framework will also be included.14 Hereinafter, the facts will be set forth in the following order: A) The regime for reparation of human rights violations committed during the dictatorship in Argentina; B) The facts that took place with respect to Mr. Almeida during the dictatorship; and C) The procedure for requesting reparations for Mr. Almeida domestically. A. The regime for reparation of human rights violations committed during the dictatorship in Argentina 29. In 1976, a coup d'état set up a dictatorship in Argentina that remained in power until December 1983, systematically committing grave human rights violations. With the return to democracy, the victims began filing legal actions demanding compensation for the grave human rights violations suffered during the dictatorship. However, this route was not effective for addressing the situations in question. In particular, given the secrecy that characterized the State terrorism, it was difficult to meet standards of evidence. Additionally, the prescription regime for civil actions, established in article 4037 of the Civil Code in force at the time, gave a deadline of two years for filing lawsuits.15 30. In response to these difficulties, the Argentine State decided to establish a legal regime of reparation measures for victims of the dictatorship. The first measures were restorative in nature. Thus, in 1984, laws were passed reinstating public officials who had been dismissed from their casefile, pages 1549-1559); copy of Decree 1058/2014, establishing the regulations for Law 26,913 (evidence file, folios 1560-1563); Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation in the case of J.A.B. (evidence file, folios 1564-1565), and the Judgments of the Federal Contentious Administrative Chamber in the case of J.A.B. (evidence file, pages 1566-1576). The Court received testimony given by affidavit by Rufino Jorge Almeida, procured ex officio by the Court; it also received the expert reports of Roberto P. Saba and María José Guembe, offered by the Commission and by the State, respectively. 13 Cf. Case of the "Five Pensioners" v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 153, and Case of Acosta Martínez et al. v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2020. Series C No. 410, para. 30. 14 Cf. Expert witness report given before notary public by María José Guembe on August 26, 2020 (evidence file, folio 1468). 15 8