the norms of the American Convention, thereby violating Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention; and on the other hand, the application of this legislation, which denies the petitioner's right to justice, thereby violating Articles 8 and 25 in relation with Article 1(1). 3 21. As to the requirements for admissibility of the petition, it is argued that the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies, contained in Article 46(1) of the Convention, is not applicable to this case because Chilean legislation lacks effective remedies to afford adequate reparations for torture victims, and that this case thus falls under the exception to that rule contained in Article 46(2)(a) of the Convention. With respect to the time limit for presenting petitions, it is argued that, because the petition complains of continuing violations, the reasonable time test cannot prevent its admissibility. The petitioners also argue that the severity of the violations, the lack of reparations and the impunity that surrounds the crime of torture in Chile, and the procedural steps taken by Mr. Garcia to obtain compensation through the only recourses available, as well as his personal circumstances as a refugee, are sufficient to warrant consideration that the petition was presented within a reasonable time. 22.By virtue of the facts and considerations related, the petition asks that the case be declared admissible because of violations of the rights of Leopoldo Garcia Lucero to a fair trial and to a judicial remedy course established in Article 8 and 25 of the American Convention, taken in relation with Articles 1(1) and 2 of that instrument. B. Position of the State 23. The State observed that, as is well known, the reestablishment of democracy in Chile marked the beginning of a lengthy and arduous process of updating and adapting its conduct and its internal rules to bring them into accord with international human rights treaties. The most important fact in this connection was approval of a constitutional reform providing for general recognition of international treaties in this area. Once the democratic government was installed, the new Parliament approved and subsequently ratified a series of treaties relating to human rights, including the American Convention on Human Rights, which Chile ratified on August 21, 1990. 24. The State notes that, in the specific case of the Pact of San Jose, Chile deposited its instrument of ratification with the OAS, accompanied by the following declaration or reservation: a. The Government of Chile declares that it recognizes, for an indefinite period of time and on the condition of reciprocity, the competence of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to receive and examine communications in which a State Party alleges that another State Party has committed a violation of the human rights established in the American Convention on Human Rights, as provided for in Article 45 of the Convention. b. The Government of Chile declares that it recognizes as legally binding the obligatory jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in cases dealing with the interpretation and application of this Convention pursuant to Article 62. c. On formulating said declarations, the Government of Chile notes that the recognition of jurisdiction it has accepted refers to situations occurring subsequent to the date of deposit of this instrument of ratification, or, in any event, to circumstances which arose after March 11, 1990. Likewise the Government of Chile, on accepting the competence of the Inter-American Commission and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights declares that these organs, in applying Article 21(2) of the Convention, shall refrain from judgments 3 See communication of the petitioners dated April 15, 2005, and received by the Executive Secretary at on April 19, 2005, which the Chilean State has not contested since its response of March 15, 2005. 5