39. On May 28, 1985, the Directorate of Technical and Legal Affairs of the DGI issued an advisory opinion also deeming it viable to pay Mrs. Perrone back the earnings she lost during the time of the detention.50 The Directorate made the following representation: Using the premise that agent Perrone endured a punishment to the extent our highest court is empowered, which becomes unfair inasmuch as she was not subjected to any proceeding whatsoever (…) it is not out of line to recognize the claimant’s wages for the time she was detained.51 40. The Directorate found that because of the uniqueness of the case at hand, its import and the lack of specific precedents regarding the issue involved, it would be the right thing for the case to be heard by the Office of the Chief Legal Counsel of the Nation (Procuración del Tesoro de la Nación).52 41. On July 24, 1985, the General Directorate of Legal Affairs of the Ministry of Economy issued an advisory opinion also deeming it viable for Mrs. Perrone to be paid back the earnings she lost during the detention.53 The Directorate held the following: (…) while Circular No. 5/77 of the General Secretariat of the Office of the President of the Nation establishes that wages should not be paid for services not provided (…) it is obvious that in this instance, the appellant was precluded from showing up [for work] by virtue of acts of authority.54 42. The Commission remarks that it does not have a copy of Circular No. 5/77. Notwithstanding, the IACHR notes that both parties have recognized that said document establishes that payment of earnings should not be made for periods in which the public servant [agent] has not actually provided services, unless an express provision of law so authorizes.55 43. The Directorate held that taking into account the economic interest involved and in order to set administrative legal precedents in this regard, the Chief Legal Counsel of the Nation should be requested to intervene.56 44. On July 2, 1985, Mr. Preckel filed an administrative claim with the DGI requesting recognition of his labor and employment benefit rights for the period of July 6, 1976 until the day he resumed working at said entity.57 50 Advisory opinion of the Directorate of Technical and Legal Affairs of the DGI, May 28, 1985. Administrative investigation proceedings. Annex to initial petition on Elba Clotilde Perrone. 51 Advisory opinion of the Directorate of Technical and Legal Affairs of the DGI, May 28, 1985. Administrative investigation proceedings. Annex to initial petition on Elba Clotilde Perrone. 52 Advisory opinion of the Directorate of Technical and Legal Affairs of the DGI, May 28, 1985. Administrative investigation proceedings. Annex to initial petition on Elba Clotilde Perrone. 53 Advisory opinion of the General Directorate of Legal Affairs of the Ministry of Economy, July 24, 1985. Administrative investigation proceedings. Annex to initial petition on Elba Clotilde Perrone. 54 Advisory opinion of the General Directorate of Legal Affairs of the Ministry of Economy, July 24, 1985. Administrative investigation proceedings. Annex to initial petition on Elba Clotilde Perrone. 55 For more information, see: Sistema Argentino de Información Jurídica. Advisory opinion of the General Directorate of Legal Affairs of the Ministry of Economy, July 24, 1985. Administrative investigation proceedings. Annex to initial petition on Elba Clotilde Perrone. 56 57 Judgment of the Judiciary of the Nation, November 1987. Administrative investigation proceedings. Annex to the initial petition on Juan José Preckel. 8