nominal value, for which the State cannot be found responsible. It further claims that the IACHR is not competent to examine the petitioner’s allegation pertaining to the form of payment of the damages awarded by the domestic court, in light of the reservation regarding Article 21 of the American Convention made by Argentina at the time of ratification.5 It contends that current domestic legislation establishes that execution of judgments rendered in cases where the State is the losing party with bonds is part of Argentine economic policy, which the IACHR is barred from examining. Lastly, the State argues that Article 25.2.c does not specify how court decisions are to be executed, and payment in bonds is not an obstacle in any way to said execution. In fact, it adds that all court judgments against the National State are executed in that same way. 33. With regard to Article 19 of the American Convention, the State argues that (i) the mere fact that Sebastian was a minor at the time of the accident does not mean that said provision has been violated; (ii) the petitioner does not submit in his original petition or in any subsequent submissions, any legal arguments of substance regarding the alleged violation of said right in detriment of Sebastian; (iii) in its admissibility report, the IACHR had referred in general terms to the special measures for the protection of children to which Sebastian was entitled as a result of the accident, and that said level of abstraction makes it impossible for the State to submit any arguments of substance on the subject, and pursue in a timely fashion its right to defense. Lastly, the State further claims that it must be recalled that Sebastian received comprehensive reparation for the damages he sustained and, based on the records in the court case file, Sebastian was treated on numerous occasions by public hospitals and no record appears of any complaint regarding the rights inherent to his condition as a child. 34. Without prejudice to the aforementioned arguments, the State notes that for humanitarian reasons and in the spirit of its traditional policy of cooperation with the bodies of the Inter-American System, it has put forth its best efforts to attempt to contribute to improve the plight that the petitioner claims to be suffering. It further indicates that on January 4, 2005, the Ministry of Defense instructed the Chief of the General Staff of the Army to take the necessary measures so that the Central Military Hospital “until it is determined which government agency shall be in charge of that responsibility, provide the health care recommended by the IACHR in the proceedings titled “FURLAN CASE.” Moreover, it contends that it has provided the psychiatric assistance requested, but that it has been the petitioner himself who has discontinued the psychological treatment provided at the Military Hospital. Additionally, and without prejudice to the fact that the petitioner received compensatory damages, the State argues that it submitted to consideration of the authorities the request that he be given a disability pension, but that it was not possible because Sebastian did not fulfill the legal requirements. Notwithstanding the above, the State asserts that “it reaffirms its wish to provide the petitioner and his family with the care and treatment required to improve their situation in keeping with strictly humanitarian reasons.” 35. Based on the above arguments, the State requests the IACHR to reject the arguments on the merits that have been presented by the petitioner in this case. VI. PROVEN FACTS A. Preliminary considerations regarding brain injuries and the importance of timely rehabilitation regarding children 5 At the time of ratification of the American Convention, the Argentine State issued the following reservation: Article 21 is subject to the following reservation: “The Argentine Government establishes that questions relating to the Government's economic policy shall not be subject to review by an international tribunal. Neither shall it consider reviewable anything the national courts may determine to be matters of 'public utility' and 'social interest', nor anything they may understand to be 'fair compensation'.”