concerning the concept of public use or social interest cited in cases involving the expropriation of an individual's property. 25. The State maintains that this reservation is valid in accordance with the rules of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, because it is not incompatible with the object and purpose of the American Convention. That reservation, validly entered by the State, imposes two limitations on the jurisdiction of the Commission for hearing individual petitions: “a restriction ex ratione temporis and a restriction ex ratione materiae”. 26. In the present case, the State argues that the first of these limitations applies, in that the jurisdiction of the oversight bodies was recognized only as of the deposit of the instrument of ratification, and as regards events that began prior to March 11, 1990, such events are expressly excluded from such jurisdiction. 27. The State noted that this decision relating to sovereignty did not deny the utility of the mechanisms of the International Community in the handling of such situations, but that it was convinced that the Chilean people and their democratically elected bodies were the appropriate ones to attempt to heal the wounds left by the human rights violations that were committed during the military régime. The State also explained that "inclusion of the reservation does not imply that events prior to 1990 cannot be held against the State as an uninterrupted entity". 28. Consequently, Chile asked the Commission, pursuant to Article 47 (c) of the American Convention, to declare this petition inadmissible because the petitioner's own statement reveals it to be wholly out of order, on the grounds that it relates to events that occurred before the deposit of the instrument of ratification and that began prior to March 11, 1990. IV. ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY A. General considerations 29. Before examining the admissibility of the complaint, the Commission deems it necessary to clarify that the petitioners’ complaint in this case is not addressed to the illegal detention, torture and expulsion of Leopoldo Garcia, at the hands of agents of the State agency during the military régime, but rather questions the lack of access to civil reparations for torture victims, particularly after recognition of State responsibility for the cases of torture documented in the Report of the Commission on Political Imprisonment and Torture. The petitioners maintain that that Commission offers a possibility for obtaining economic compensation for the victims of systematic torture by the military régime, but that it fails to consider aggravating circumstances such as those of victims who were rendered incapable of working or those who, in addition to being tortured, were expelled from the country and are residing in countries where the basic cost of living is higher than in Chile. B. Competence of the Commission ratione personae, ratione loci, ratione temporis, and ratione materiae 30. The petitioners are entitled by Article 44 of the American Convention to present complaints before the Commission. The petition names as the alleged victim Mr. Leopoldo Garcia, with respect to whom Chile is committed to respect and guarantee the rights enshrined in the American Convention. The Commission notes that Chile has been a State Party to the American Convention since August 21, 1990, when it deposited its instrument of ratification. The Commission therefore has jurisdiction ratione personae to examine the petition. 31. The Commission has jurisdiction ratione loci inasmuch as the alleged violations took place within the territory of Chile, a State party to the American Convention. The petitioner argues that 6