32 training and awareness-raising for the officials responsible for dealing with the cases of victims of assault or sexual violence. The Committee recommends that the State party increase its efforts in regard to reparation, compensation and rehabilitation so as to ensure fair and appropriate reparation for all victims of torture. 120 108. In application of the standards established regarding what constitutes full reparation in cases such as this, the Commission considers that when a person suffers a permanent disability as a consequence of an act of torture, the measures of reparation and rehabilitation must be individualized in order to effectively address the specific and particular needs of the disabled person. 109. The IACHR acknowledges the efforts made by the State in its Reparations program to include measures to treat the health of victims of human rights violations committed during the military regime. However, the Commission also observes that although a victim of torture, Mr. García Lucero has not had access to the PRAIS because he does not live in Chile; nor has he received the health care benefits (including psychological or psychiatric treatment) that the State provides to mitigate the consequences of the torture and exile endured, or treatment to relieve the physical consequences of the torture. Although the State has taken certain measures to grant benefits to persons in exile, those measures have not served to remedy the specific situation of Mr. García Lucero. The fact of the matter is that Mr. García Lucero has been unable to avail himself of the benefits granted under the Reparations program because he was sent into exile. 1. Compensation for the harm done 110. First, the IACHR wishes to acknowledge, in general, the reparations program designed and implemented by the State of Chile, specifically with regards to the compensations given to victims of human rights violations during the military dictatorship, and in particular, with respect to the benefits given to Mr. García Lucero as an “exonerado político”. 111. As for the compensation for the harm done, the Commission will not examine whether the amount of the compensation paid to Mr. García Lucero under the Chilean State’s Reparations program was adequate or sufficient. Nevertheless, the established facts in this case show that Mr. García Lucero received a “bonus” and continues to receive a pension, but by virtue of having been fired due to his political ideology (the State’s recognition that he is an “exonerado politico”), and not as a victim of torture. The only monetary compensation paid for the harm done by the torture was a payment he received under Law 19,992 for having opted to continue to receive the pension as “exonerado politico”, over the benefits paid to victims of torture and political imprisonment. In the Commission’s view, this does not constitute a comprehensive form of reparation in the specific case of Mr. García Lucero, especially when one considers that he suffers from a permanent disability resulting from the torture, which has left him unable to work since 1975. Here, the Commission must emphasize that “[a] respondent state may not invoke domestic legal provisions to modify or avoid complying with its obligations to redress, which are regulated in all their aspects (scope, nature, modes, and establishment of the beneficiaries) by international law.” 121 Also, it is noteworthy that Mr. García Lucero’s lost wages due to his permanent disability were not recognized. 120 Annex 24. Committee against Torture. Final conclusions of the Committee against Torture, CAT/C/CHL/CO/5, May 14, 2009, 42nd Session, para. 18. Emphasis in the original. 121 IACHR, Application with the I/A Court H.R. in the Case of Teodoro Cabrera García and Rodolfo Montiel Flores (Case 12.449) v. Mexico, June 24, 2009, para. 177, citing the following cases: I/A Court H.R., Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, para. 190; I/A Court H.R., Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 148; I/A Court H.R., Case of La Cantuta v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006 Series C No. 162, para. 200; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 415.