the Chilean State is liable for payment of reparations to him that will recognize the higher cost of living in the United Kingdom, imposed upon him by his illegal expulsion from Chile, which also prevented him from working to support his family. In the past, the Commission has decided various cases in which it found that the expulsion of Chilean nationals by their own State was contrary to the rights established in the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man. 4 Consequently, the fact that Mr. Garcia finds himself in the United Kingdom as a result of State action must be taken into consideration. 32. The Commission has jurisdiction ratione temporis because the petition does not ask the Commission to pronounce itself on events that occurred prior to August 21, 1990. The principal argument presented in the State's response of February 18, 2005, is that Chile is not responsible, under the American Convention, for violations allegedly committed during the period between September 11, 1973 and March 11, 1990. In the course of their admissibility arguments, the petitioners clarified the scope of their petition, excluding from it all allegations relating to such events. 5 The Commission considers that in this case the allegations refer only to events that occurred after August 21, 1990. 33.The State of El Salvador filed a preliminary objection in the Serrano Cruz case similar to the Chilean State's response in the present case, to the effect that the Inter-American Court lacked jurisdiction ratione temporis. In that case, the State asked the Court, on the basis of its declaration recognizing the contentious jurisdiction of the Court, not to examine events that occurred prior to the date of that declaration, and that began before the deposit of the declaration of recognition. 6 The Inter-American Court interpreted that declaration not as a "reservation" but as a "time constraint" with respect to cases that could be submitted to the court, excluding from its jurisdiction events or facts prior to the date of deposit of the declaration, and admitting events or facts that allegedly occurred after the recognition of the court's jurisdiction, such as the failure to conduct a civil or criminal investigation to determine what happened 7. 34. The principal argument presented in the response by the State on February 18, 2005 is that Chile is not responsible, under the American Convention, for violations allegedly committed during the period between September 11, 1973 and March 11, 1990. The Commission considers that in the case at hand the allegations refer only to the judgments handed down by the Chilean courts between 1999 and 2003, when the Convention was already in effect for Chile. As to the State's argument that the Commission should declare the petition inadmissible because the events began prior to March 11, 1990, the Commission rejects this argument because the judicial proceedings constitute events independent of the summary executions. The Commission bases this conclusion on the judgment of November 23, 2004 in the case of the Sisters Serrano Cruz v. El Salvador, in which the Inter-American Court held: 84. The Court considers that the events that occurred after recognition of the Court's jurisdiction by El Salvador, referring to the alleged violations of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention in relation with Article 1(1 ) thereof, are not excluded by the limitation imposed by the State, because what is at issue are judicial decisions constituting independent events that began after El Salvador's recognition of the Court's jurisdiction, and that could constitute specific and independent instances of the denial of justice occurring after recognition of the Court's jurisdiction. 4 See for example Resolution 10/85, Case 8095 (Chile), March 5, 1985; Resolution 11/85, Case 9269 (Chile), March 5, 1985. 5 The petitioners declared: "The acts or omissions that the petitioner submits for examination by the Commission were committed after Chile's ratification of the Convention, which according to the response of the government dated March 15, 2005, is the moment as of which it may respond for acts committed within its realm". 6 I/A Court HR, Sisters Serrano Cruz case, Judgment (merits) of November 23, 2004. 7 Id. para. 62 7