8. (…) there has not been an express provision that allows for an exception to the essential principle on the subject of wages, which is, that it is not proper to pay wages for unrendered services. It does not mean a denial of the consequences of the unlawful act of the de facto government from the perspective of responsibility of the National State, an issue that, procedurally and substantively, were not raised in the record of the case proceedings.100 64. The petitioners reported that the Secretariat of Human Rights of the Nation issued an advisory opinion finding that “Articles 1, 2, 8, 21, 24 (of the Convention) and Articles XIV, XVII, XVIII and XXIII of the American Declaration have been violated.”101 They reported that on April 3, 2005, the Secretariat ratified its previous advisory opinion.102 They further noted that on April 3, 2009, the Under Secretary for the Protection of Human Rights ratified the previous advisory opinions.103 V. ANALYSIS OF THE MERITS A. Preliminary issues 65. First off, the Commission notes that throughout the merits stage, the State continued to put forward arguments relating to the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies, specifically with respect to civil action for damages against the National State. In this regard, the Commission recalls that the appropriate procedural time to make arguments on exhaustion of domestic remedies is during the admissibility stage, after which any discussion on said requirement is precluded.104 As such, the Commission will analyze hereafter the facts and the arguments of the parties relating to the merits of the matter. 66. Secondly, the Commission reiterates its representations in the admissibility report regarding the purpose of the instant case. On this score, the Commission recalls that the purpose is confined to the claim of the alleged victims regarding uncollected payment of wages and benefits at the state agency where they were employees, as a consequence of their arbitrary deprivation of liberty and of exile in the case of Mr. Preckel. In this regard, and as has been confirmed by the petitioners, the detention, torture and exile themselves do not fall within the scope of the purpose of the instant case. The adequacy of the compensation received by the victims under Law No. 24.043 does not fall under the scope of the purpose either. 67. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Commission recalls that both bodies of the system have issued rulings about the relationship between administrative reparations and other claims. 68. In the case of García Lucero et al v. Chile, the Inter-American Court held that: (…) 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 co-exist with such programs, 100 Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, May 21, 1996. Judicial proceedings. Annex to initial petition on Elba 101 Petitioners’ communication of October 10, 2006. 102 Petitioners’ communication of October 10, 2006. 103 Petitioners’ communication of October 10, 2006. Clotilde. IA Court of HR. Case of Mémoli v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 22, 2013. Series C No. 265, para. 47. 104 14