B. Considerations of the Court 48. This Court has recognized that, should domestic mechanisms exist for determining forms of reparation, these procedures and the results should be praised,51 as they constitute a State effort toward a collective process of reparation and social peace. It likewise highlights a number of international documents that explicitly recognize the right of the victims of human rights violations to access remedies and obtain individual reparations. They include the Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power;52 the Set of Principles for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights Through Action to Combat Impunity;53 and the Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law.54 Similar to what this Court has established, the European Court of Human Rights has recognized the compatibility of collective and individual measures.55 These mechanisms must meet criteria of objectivity, reasonableness, and effectiveness to provide adequate reparations for rights violations.56 49. Starting the 1990s, Argentina began developing a policy of providing administrative measures of reparation to victims of the last dictatorship (see supra para. 29 to 32). Among these measures was Law 24,043, which established benefits for persons held by the PEN during martial law or who, as civilians, were detained on warrants issued by courts martial. It was at first understood that de facto situations of monitored release were excluded from this compensation mechanism, meaning supervised release where there was no order formally establishing the measure. However, this interpretation was later modified by the courts. Indeed, in its 1997 ruling in the Noro case, the Supreme Court of Justice explicitly established that the purpose of the law was to grant financial compensation to persons deprived of their constitutional right to liberty, regardless of the form of the active authority producing that deprivation (supra para. 38), and this interpretation was adopted by the National Federal Contentious Administrative Chamber with the 2003 Robasto case (supra para. 40). 50. Mr. Almeida filed his administrative suit for deprivation of liberty suffered during the period of the dictatorship in 1995—that is, before the change in criteria brought about by the Noro and Robasto precedents. He was therefore only granted compensation for the time during which he Cf. Case of Gomes Lund et al (Guerrilha do Araguaia) v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2010. Series C No. 219, para. 303, and Case of Perrone and Preckel v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 8, 2019. Series C No. 384, para. 116. 51 Adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in resolution 40/34 of November 29, 1985. States in its principle 4 that “they can should be treated with compassion and respect for their dignity. They are entitled to access to the mechanisms of justice and to prompt redressed, as provided for by national legislation, for the harm that they have suffered.” 52 Adopted by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights on February 8, 2005. Principle 31 states: “Any human rights violation gives rise to a right to reparation on the part of the victim or his or her beneficiaries, implying a duty on the part of the State to make reparation and the possibility for the victim to seek redress from the perpetrator.” 53 Adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in resolution 60/147 of November 16, 2005. Principles 12, 13, and 14 establish the right of alleged victims to access a judicial remedy. Principle 18 of this document notes that victims have a right to “full and effective” reparation. Cf. https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/remedyandreparation.aspx 54 55 ECHR, Case of Broniowski v. Poland, no. 31443/96. Judgment of July 22, 2004, para. 36. Cf. Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment dated May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 246, and Case of Hernández v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2019. Series C No. 395, para. 18. 56 15