offenses contemplated in those laws. He also indicates that Law 24,411 and Law 25,914 offered doubts and misgivings stemming from the uniform treatment to be accorded very diverse situations, and that the ups and downs of the Argentine economy provoked brusque fluctuations in the real value of the reparations actually received. In addition, he argues that those laws in no way prohibit, impede, or limit the recognition of “fair compensation” as per Article 63 of the American Convention nor the integral or full reparations enshrined in the inter-American case-law. 11. The petitioner indicates that in 2012 they learned of two criminal cases under way with respect to two former inspectors of the Argentine Federal Police for the crimes of aggravated illegal deprivation of liberty to the detriment of Victoria Grisonas and for aggravated homicide to the detriment of Mario Julien. He indicates that in those cases the initial thesis that Mario Julien had committed suicide was discarded. He also indicates that the Larrabeiti Yáñez siblings filed a brief seeking to have the matter proceed to oral trial and they asked that evidence be collected aimed at locating their parents’ remains. He notes that on September 11, 2017, Federal Oral Court No. 1, in the context of Case No. 2,261, convicted Rolando Oscar Nerone and Oscar Roberto Gutiérrez and sentenced them to six years in prison as co-perpetrators of the crime of unlawful deprivation of liberty to the detriment of Victoria Grisonas, and absolved them of the crime of aggravated homicide to the detriment of Mario Julien. 12. He adds that on September 18, 2017, the Larrabeiti Yáñez siblings filed a motion for recusal against Federal Criminal and Correctional Judge Daniel Rafecas, in the context of Case No. 2,637/04, for malicious omission and denial of justice, on not having included in the charges for oral trial the crimes of which they were the direct victims. In addition, the petitioner indicates that Anatole had to become a private accuser (querellante particular) given the “total lack of interest, inaction, and passivity” of the Secretariat for Human Rights of the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights of the Nation. He argues that it was thanks exclusively to the action by Anatole that some substantial advances followed, such as locating the building that was the family home, which was appropriated by members of the military. The home, along with the car and all other property of the JulienGrisonas family, was considered part of a major “war bounty,” causing harm to the family’s property rights. 13. Based on the facts described the petitioner alleges that the Argentine State violated the rights established at Articles 4, 5, 7, 8(1), 11, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to its Articles 1(1) and 2, as well as those established at Articles I, V, VII, VIII, IX, XVIII, and XXIV of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man. B. State 14. The State argues that the transmittal of the petition by the Commission more than four years after it was filed runs to the detriment of legal certainty and juridical stability, and deprives the Argentine State of the ability to mount an adequate defense. 15. In addition, it notes that the petition filed in 1997 referring to the doubts sparked by the fourth preambular paragraph of Decree No. 1025/96 is excluded from this analysis, since it was abandoned by the petitioner on October 27, 1997. It understands that the facts that are the basis of the case “are those that occurred on September 26, 1976, related to the forced disappearance of the petitioners’ parents, their unlawful deprivation of liberty at a clandestine detention center when children, then their appropriation, transfer to Uruguay, and subsequent abandonment in Chile.” 16. As regards the criminal investigation into the facts, it notes that the Argentine State has given impetus, without interruption, to “public policies of Memory, Truth, and Justice … in relation to the crimes against humanity perpetrated during the de facto military government of 1976 to 1983.” In particular, it indicates that there is a mega case with respect to the crimes committed at the “Automotores Orletti” clandestine detention center. It states that at least three oral and public trials have been held whose victims were the Larrabeiti Yáñez siblings and their parents, in two of which there have already been guilty verdicts; the other case is fully under way.