24. The State believes that the indemnification granted has
satisfied the claims of Ms. Perrone and Mr. Preckel, in obtaining the
benefit set forth in Law 24.043 for individuals who, during the state of
siege, were placed in the national executive’s custody, regardless of
whether or not they began proceedings for damages, and provided that
they had received no indemnification under a judicial ruling in
connection with the actions covered by said law.
25. Article 9 of Law 24.043 stipulates that “payment of the
benefit implies relinquishment of all right to indemnification for damages
arising from deprivation of freedom, arrest, being kept under executive
custody, death, or physical injury and shall exclude all other benefits or
indemnifications for the same cause.” It cannot be argued that this was
a special situation, since all the individuals who have received
indemnification were prevented from working or practicing their trade,
industry, or profession and, consequently, from receiving payment by
the same cause: their arrest. The State’s reparations policy for the
causes addressed herein can be found in the friendly settlement reached
in case Nº 10.288 and other cases in the Commission’s archive and is
reflected in Decree Nº 70/91; Law 24.043 subsequently extended the
scope of the beneficiaries. In report Nº 1/93 the Commission expressed
its recognition of the Argentine State’s having made compensation
payments that were accepted by the petitioners and based on respect
for human rights.
26. The State understands that the Commission considers that
the benefits granted by Law 24.043 constitute redress in the sense used
in the inter-American human rights system and are a substitute for
damages. Consequently, all claims related to the facts that make up the
juridical substance of the provision are subsumed by receipt of that
benefit, which comprises in totum [totally] the payment of all amounts
that could arise therefrom. Since Perrone and Preckel invoked the
provisions of the State’s reparations policy, the State has covered the
responsibility due to it for the petitioners’ arrest, and therefore this
petition does not deal with facts that represent a violation of protected
rights.
IV.
ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY
27. The Commission’s rulings on the admissibility of the cases
brought before it are intended not only to invest its decisions with
8