reparation, with social benefits for the family members of victims and financial compensation for victims. The State concludes that any measure adopted on behalf victims of imprisonment and torture for political reasons must be universal, because special and differentiated benefits favoring some to the detriment of others would distort Chilean public policy with respect to reparation. The State did not pronounce on the application of the civil law statute of limitations to the lawsuits in these cases. IV. PROVEN FACTS 44. In its analysis, and pursuant to Article 43.1 of its Rules of Procedure, the Commission bases its conclusion on the arguments and evidence presented by the parties, the information related to this case obtained during the hearing before the IACHR in its 134th period of sessions,15 and on information that is a matter of public knowledge.16 In addition, the Commission will take into account the official reports of the Rettig Commission and the Valech Commission.17 45. It is worth pointing out that in its admissibility reports regarding the cases under review, the Commission made it clear that the complaint was not about the criminal investigation of the acts that took place during the military dictatorship but rather about "the refusal of the Chilean courts to grant compensation"18 to the victims in the instant case, above all after the Rettig Commission had recognized the State's liability for the serious violations of the human rights of family members. Likewise, the Commission considered that in the case at hand, "the allegations refer only to the judgments handed down by the Chilean courts between 1999 and 2003."19 Therefore, the facts addressed in what follows deal only with judicial proceedings brought by the alleged victims in this case for the purpose of obtaining reparation and the responses they received. A. The Chilean State's rules on reparation 46. Following the end of the military dictatorship, on April 25, 1990, President Patricio Aylwin Azocar issued Supreme Decree (D.S.) No. 355, which established the Rettig Commission based on the fact that "the moral conscience of the nation demands that the truth about the grave violations of human rights committed in our country between September 11, 1973 and March 11, 1990 be brought to light." 20. That Commission's tasks were: "1.To establish as complete a picture as possible of those grave events, as well as their antecedents and circumstances; 2. To gather evidence that may make it possible to identify the victims by name and determine their fate or whereabouts; 3. To recommend such measures of reparation and reinstatement as it regards as just; and 4. To recommend the legal and administrative measures which in its judgment should be adopted in order to prevent actions such as those mentioned in this article from being committed."21 15 IACHR, Hearing, 131st Period of Sessions, Cases “Comuna 13”, 12.596 – Luz Dary Ospina Bastidas, 12.595 – Miriam Eugenia Rúa Figueroa, and 12.621 – Teresa Yarce, Mery Naranjo and Socorro Mosquera, Colombia, March 12, 2008, available at: http://www.oas.org/es/cidh/audiencias/Hearings.aspx?Lang=es&Session=12&page=2. 16 Article 43.1 of the IACHR Rules of Procedure: The Commission shall deliberate on the merits of the case, to which end it shall prepare a report in which it will examine the arguments, the evidence presented by the parties, and the information obtained during hearings and on-site observations. In addition, the Commission may take into account other information that is a matter of public knowledge. 17 I/A Court H.R., Case of Almonacid-Arellano et al v. Chile. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, par. 82. 18 IACHR. Reports of October 12, 2005: No. 60/05, Petition 511-03, María Ordenes Guerra (Chile), par. 20; No. 61/05, Petition 698-03, Lucía Morales Compagnon et al. (Chile), par.19; No. 62/05, Petition 862-03, Alina María Barraza Codoceo et al, (Chile), par. 17; and No. 59/05, Petition 381-04, Mercedes Magdalena Navarrete et al. (Chile), par. 19. 19 IACHR. Reports of October 12, 2005: No. 60/05, Petition 511-03, María Ordenes Guerra (Chile), par. 23; No. 61/05, Petition 698-03, Lucía Morales Compagnon et al. (Chile), par.20; No. 62/05, Petition 862-03, Alina María Barraza Codoceo et al.; (Chile), par. 20; and No. 59/05, Petition 381-04, Mercedes Magdalena Navarrete et al. (Chile), par. 22. 20 First Whereas Clause in Supreme Decree (D.S.) No. 355 of April 25, 1990. In: Report of the Rettig Commission, Volume I, pp. 21 First Whereas Clause in Supreme Decree (D.S.) No. 355 of April 25, 1990. In: Report of the Rettig Commission, Volume I, pp. XI to XIV. XI to XIV. 8