-27- B. Compensation 108. The Commission considered that the State must “make reparation to the victims” and, “as part of this reparation, the State must adopt the necessary measures to provide an effective judicial remedy so that the victims can present their claims and obtain a decision on reparations,” which must be “separate from the administrative program.” 109. The representative, for his part, proposed that the State define “a quick and effective remedy - legal, administrative or of any nature- that provides for the corresponding compensation.” The amount of such compensation should be based on international criteria and on the standards currently applied by the Chilean judiciary. 110. As indicated in its answering brief (supra para. 19), the State considered that the decisions handed down in the legal cases brought by the victims have the force of res judicata, which makes it legally impossible to reinstate the proceedings to issue new judgments; therefore, the appropriate reparation would be some form of monetary compensation. 111. Nevertheless, in its final arguments the State asked the Court to reject the reparation measures proposed by the Commission, to deny the merits of financial compensation and to grant, in favor of the victims, the appropriate non-pecuniary reparation measures. In this regard, it argued that this Court is not authorized to rule on damages caused by crimes against humanity that gave rise to the aforementioned civil actions, nor on acts related to the criminal investigation of those crimes, since those facts were excluded from the subject matter of the litigation by the representative and by the Commission and, furthermore, because the Court does not have jurisdiction ratione temporis to rule on measures to redress violations of rights committed during the military dictatorship. It argued that this is confirmed in jurisprudence on previous cases against Chile related to the denial of justice in crimes against humanity.79 The State is of the opinion that the Court should apply the same criteria used to resolve the case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile and requested that it not consider the payment of damages as a relevant measure of reparation for the victims. It emphasized that this request does not represent a veiled way of evading its own responsibilities towards the victims of human rights violations that occurred during the military dictatorship, but rather should be seen in the light of the efforts made by the State since 1990 to provide them with adequate reparations. 112. In its final observations, the Commission noted that restitution must be granted whenever possible and that this component is central to this case; however, the State’s approach makes it illusory, despite the fact that it is feasible due to the nature of the case. Thus, since the obligated State cannot invoke provisions or difficulties in its domestic law to avoid complying with its obligations, the Commission reiterated that the victims, if they so wish, must have a judicial remedy to claim redress; therefore, the Court should not admit the State’s argument that it is legally The State pointed out that, although a possible alternative is the payment of compensation, there must be a causal link between the act attributable (the violation of a Convention right) and the damage that is sought to be repaired. Thus, assuming that the Court can define the State's obligation to compensate the victims, it would be a fundamental requirement for the Commission or the petitioners to have accredited precisely which damages are related to the violations declared by this Court, in addition to their amount. However, the Commission did not request that the State be ordered to pay compensation for possible pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages for the denial of justice by the State, nor did the representative request specific measures of pecuniary reparation; that is, they did not provide evidence to prove the extent of the damage suffered. Given the lack of evidence, it is not possible for the Court to assess the specific amounts of such damages in this case, nor to establish their relationship with the facts and the violations of rights that generated the international responsibility of the State, for which reason it is extremely complex to order the State to pay compensation. The State pointed out that this was the decision of the Court in the case of Almonacid Arerellano v. Chile, in which, in addition to not awarding compensation due to the absence of evidence, with respect to non-pecuniary damage, it established that -by virtue of the State's reparation policies- the victims had received various pecuniary amounts and that, therefore, it was not necessary to order payment of compensation for this item. The reparation policies mentioned by the Court in that case are the same as those indicated by the State in the present case, by virtue of which most of the victims (except for four) have received and, in some cases, continue to receive financial benefits since the beginning of the 1990s. Thus, the judgment will in any event constitute a form of reparation. 79