for the persons affected to be able to have recourse to expeditious and effective mechanisms.”178 Nevertheless, the Commission has stressed, regarding this, that:179 the mechanisms of reparation offered by the State must be integral or full in the sense of taking into account all the components of reparation in accordance with the international obligations of states. In particular, the Commission considers that the determination of reparation whether determined judicially or administratively (with the two jurisdictions being mutually exclusive), does not exempt the State of its obligations related to the component of justice for the violations caused, which obligates the State to guarantee the victims that there will be an investigation into and punishment of the persons responsible for those violations, as per the requirements of international law. 196. Regarding the suitability of the administrative reparations mechanisms in situations of transitional justice such as that of Colombia, the Inter-American Court has considered that:180 In scenarios of transitional justice, where the states must fulfill their duty to provide massive reparations to large numbers of victims that might largely exceed the capacities and possibilities of domestic courts, administrative reparation programs constitute one of the legitimate ways of observing the right to reparations. In those contexts, these reparation measures must be understood together with other measures of truth and justice, as long as they meet a series of requirements associated, among others, with their legitimacy and effective capacity of comprehensive reparations for them. 197. Likewise, according to what is established by the IACHR, “the complementary nature of reparations ordered administratively and judicially, can be verified at the international level, where, for example, the InterAmerican Court has established judicial reparation measures, even when the victims had already received compensation in the framework of general programs of reparation at the national level.”181 198. According to the Court, if “national mechanisms … exist to determine forms of reparation, these procedures [and their results] should be evaluated” and, to this end, it must be examined whether or not they “satisfy standards of objectivity, reasonability, and effectiveness.” 182 In addition, the Court has considered, regarding this, that:183 the existence of administrative programs of reparation must be compatible with the State’s obligations under the American Convention and other international norms and, therefore, it cannot lead to a breach of the State’s duty to ensure the “free and full exercise” of the rights to judicial guarantees and protection, in keeping with Articles 1(1), 25(1) and 8(1) of the Convention, respectively. In other words, the administrative reparation programs and other measures or actions of a legal or other nature that coexist with such programs, cannot result in an obstruction of the possibility of the victims, pursuant to the rights to judicial guarantees and protection, filing actions to claim reparations. […] [A]ccording to treaty-based rights, the establishment of domestic administrative or collective reparation programs does not prevent the victims from filing actions to claim measures of reparation. 199. Likewise, regarding Chile, the Court has pointed out that the case law criterion on the complementary and non-exclusive nature of reparations granted administratively and judicially, “is reasonable with respect to the right of the victims of grave human rights violations to gain access to justice in order to request a judicial IACHR. Truth, Justice and Reparation: Fourth Report on the Human Rights Situation in Colombia. OEA/Ser.L/V.II. Doc. 49/13. December 31, 2013, para. 467. 179 IACHR. Truth, Justice and Reparation: Fourth Report on the Human Rights Situation in Colombia. OEA/Ser.L/V.II. Doc. 49/13. December 31, 2013, para. 467. 180 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. 98. 181 IACHR. Truth, Justice and Reparation: Fourth Report on the Human Rights Situation in Colombia. OEA/Ser.L/V.II. Doc. 49/13. December 31, 2013, para. 468. 182 I/A Court H.R. 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. 183 I/A Court H.R. Case of García Lucero et al. v. Chile. Preliminary Objection, Merits, and Reparations. Judgment of August 28, 2013. Series C No. 267, paras. 190 and 192. 178