declaration of the state’s responsibility, so that an individual calculation of the damages can be made or, as the case may be, to question the sufficiency or effectiveness of the reparations received previously.”184 4. Analysis of the case 200. According to available information, on August 22, 1995, the Larrabeiti Yáñez siblings requested the benefits of Law No. 24.411 for the forced disappearance of their biological mother and father. Afterwards, they requested the benefits of Law No. 25.914 for the unlawful deprivation of liberty committed against them when they were children. In both cases, the cases were provisionally archived because of the existence of a civil complaint filed against the national state, and they were reopened in 2017 and 2017, respectively. There is no information in the case file with the IACHR indicating that they have proceeded with these cases or obtained the respective reparations. 201. The state alleges that reparations laws are adequate mechanisms to provide satisfactory responses to pecuniary claims because they recognized a special benefit for persons who had not filed the respective proceedings for damages within the general delay under the statute of limitations, and therefore the state provided a response in conformity with the principles of distributive justice to prevent the victims from being deprived of all compensation. The petitioner, in turn, contends that “the administrative proceeding with a rated compensation” does not provide any responses to the instant case but rather that the course to follow is that of a “judicial action with a large body of evidence and without any pre-established limits.” He points out that the principal concern of the victims was to know the true facts and to manage to establish the fate of their biological mother and father at a time when there was no possibility of conducting a criminal investigation, which is something that cannot be achieved by providing a rated and limited reparation. Regarding this, he indicates that the option of appealing for redress through the courts turned out to be completely successful because on the basis of a civil lawsuit, it was possible to locate key witnesses and to learn about a large part of the facts. 202. In the instant case, the Larrabeiti Yáñez siblings are determined to secure reparations ruled in a court of law in accordance with a broad concept of redress, set in accordance with the specific features of their case and not on the basis of previously established amounts and limitations. If the victims in this case, instead of giving priority to a simple administrative proceeding without any of the difficulties and costs of a litigation, prefer having recourse to a court of law with the demands that this entails (longer delays, higher costs, and stricter requirements in terms of evidence regarding damages) to secure a court ruling of responsibility, the state cannot undermine the free and full exercise of their rights to a fair trial and to judicial protection. 203. Nevertheless, in the instant case, the Commission observes that the recourse that the Larrabeiti Yáñez siblings gave priority to was not, in practice, obstructed by the provisions of Laws Nos. 24.411 and 25.914, which excluded seeking redress in the courts, to the extent that they were able to complete the civil proceedings in all instances, and ultimately the action was ruled inadmissible because of the application of the statute of limitations, a subject that has already been examined in the present report. In that respect, under the circumstances of this particular case, the Commission does not find any violations of the American Convention for the exclusion contained in the laws referred to. VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 204. The Commission concludes that the state of Argentina is responsible for the violation of the rights to recognition as a person before the law, to life, to personal integrity and humane treatment, to personal liberty, to a fair trial, and to judicial protection as enshrined in Articles 3, 4.1, 5.1, 5.2, 7.1, 8.1, and 25.1 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in connection with its Articles 1.1 and 2; in Article I, subparagraphs a) and b), and Article III of the Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons; in Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture; as well as in Articles I, V, VI, VIII, XVII, XIX, and XXV of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, in connection with its Article VII, to the I/A Court H.R. Case of Órdenes Guerra et al v. Chile. Merits, Reparations, and Costs Judgment of November 29, 2018. Series C No. 372, para. 100. 184