did so individually, based on particular, specific conventions.60 The Congress, however, did recognize the existence of the debt through a special legislative committee.61 It held that: The members of this special committee, however, even beyond the solid arguments of fact and law outlined earlier, held unanimously that while the debt to the teachers per se was grounded in law, as it arose from the mandatory legal provision in Article 40 of decree-law 3,551 of 1981, and that it is therefore still in force only for teachers transferred before December 19, 1982, it is equally true that the “historical debt” to teachers should receive moral recognition because, in essence, and given the particular contextual events in which it occurred, it has lived on in the memory of the country's teachers, certain that their rights to property were breached when they were transferred to a legal and labor situation they had not asked for and that, in practical terms, they could not avoid.62 58. The committee of the Chamber of Deputies found that a total of 84,002 people were affected by the “historical debt” to teachers, for an amount of USD 9.13 billion.63 This claim by the teachers of Chile continues to be an active public debate.64 59. The domestic courts recognized the existence of a debt derived from the failure to pay this allowance for the teachers who are applicants in this case, and therefore, the situation of these teachers is different from that of teachers in general who are demanding payment of the “historical debt” because the allowance was not incorporated into their compensation system, but who have not been favored by a judicial decision. Nevertheless, several organizations, including the ILO, have analyzed the situation of the teachers generally, taking into account the problems triggered by the failure to pay the allowance created under decree-law 3,551 of 1980, regardless of whether each particular case has been covered by a judicial decision recognizing the debt.65 B. Domestic processes in favor of the alleged victims 60 “[T]he teachers were entitled until 12/29/82 to petition the municipality for the Article 40 allowance under decree-law 3,551/80, ending on the date of publication of law 18,196, as of which date, teachers could receive the financial benefit in question only if they had so agreed in the employment contract signed with the municipal government and for amounts indicated therein, because from the time law 18,196 when into effect, workers in the transferred schools were entirely governed by private sector labor and compensation and retirement regulations.” Cf. Office of the Controller General of the Republic, opinion 56,380 of November 11, 2004, cited by the Chamber of Deputies of Chile.. Report of the Special Committee on “historical debts,” supra (evidence file, folio 38). Cf. Chamber of Deputies of Chile. Report of the Special Committee on “historical debts,” supra (evidence file, folios 3ff.). This report states, “...both the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate have taken a position supporting the claim of the Teachers’ Association. During this decade, the Senate Chamber has unanimously approved at least three favorable bills on the same subject. The Chamber of Deputies, in turn, has approved at least five favorable bills, asking the government for measures to settle the debt that the Sate of Chile owes the teachers” (evidence file, folio 60). 61 62 79). Chamber of Deputies of Chile. Report of the Special Committee on “historical debts,” supra (evidence file, folio Cf. Chamber of Deputies of Chile. Report of the Special Committee on “historical debts,” supra (evidence file, folio 79). 63 Cf. Annex 3 to the Commission's Report on the Merits, containing newspaper articles on the historical debt (evidence file, folios 200 to 489). 64 Thus, the ILO found three broad periods in its report regarding the case of the “historical debt” to teachers. During the first period (1981-1991), which it calls the “legislative period,” all the laws and decrees referred to in the claim before the ILO were adopted. The second period (1991-2001) it calls the “litigation period,” when teachers filed their complaints with domestic courts, some of which were successful. Finally, during the period starting in 2002, the teachers took their case to the National Parliament and lodged complaints with international bodies. Paragraph sixty-four of the ILO report expressly identifies the judicial cases against the municipalities of Cauquenes, Chanco, Pelluhue, Parral, Vallenar and Chañaral (International Labour Office. Report of the Director-General, supra, evidence file, folios 170 to 192). 65 20