next of kin to the judicial protection and guarantees recognized in the Convention. They assert that the 1978 amnesty law, decree 2,191, is incompatible with the provisions of the Convention because it denies the right of access to justice. B. The State's position 14. The State expressly asserts that "it does not deny the facts reported in the communication from the victim's representative." While it does not raise procedural objections, it makes a series of substantive arguments. 15. The State argues that the specific historical context of this case is a factor the Commission should consider. It explains that Chile moved from a military regime to a constitutional one, and that the 1978 amnesty law, decree 2,191, was part of that process. In this democratization process, the State contends, the constitutional governments implicitly accepted the juridical system and laws established by the military regime, and the constitutional governments could not, therefore, repeal the 1978 amnesty law, decree 2,191. 16. The State explains that, in any case, it would be impossible for the government to try to change this decree, because some of the members of the present senate -which plays an essential role in the process of legislative reform- were appointed by the military regime. Repeal of the 1978 amnesty law, decree 2,191, would also imply a violation of the criminal law principle of the non-retroactivity. 17. The State also argues that because the judicial branch of government is independent of the executive branch, the latter can have no influence on judicial decisions. 18 The State also notes that a distinction has to be made between an amnesty law decreed by a de facto government and one enacted by a constitutional government, as the National Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights both acknowledged. The State contends that an amnesty law decreed by a de facto regime is a way of ensuring that regime's impunity, whereas those enacted by constitutional governments are part of a process of national reconciliation. The State argues that because the amnesty law in question was decreed by the de facto government, the democratic government is not responsible for those decrees. 19. The State notes that the constitutional governments have not enacted any amnesty law that could be regarded as incompatible with the American Convention, nor have they, either by action or omission, done anything that would be contrary to the obligations Chile undertook as a party to the said Covenant. 20. Lastly, the State alleges that the National Truth and Reconciliation Commission already considered the case of Luis Alfredo Almonacid Arellano. This Commission acknowledged the facts, specifically that Almonacid Arellano was extra-judicially executed by agents of the State and that his human rights were violated. The State also explained that Mr. Almonacid Arellano's next of kin were already compensated based on the information provided by the Instituto de Normalización Previsional and the Office of the Deputy Secretary of the Interior since 1992. IV. ANALYSIS ON COMPETENCE AND ADMISSIBILITY A. The Commission's competence ratione personae, ratione loci, ratione temporis and ratione materiae 21. Under Article 44 of the American Convention, the petitioners are entitled to lodge complaints with the IACHR. The petition refers as alleged victims to persons whose Convention-recognized 3