18 me a hand. I could die at any time. But if I could eat a little piece of beef, a steak, I would die happy. I would at least be able to eat it, because a small opening was found (…) As I see it, justice in the [Commission] has taken some time. It has been (…) very difficult, because it has dragged on for so long, and I have still not gotten anything I wish for. 64 60. Concerning the pension given by Chile, Mr. García Lucero said that “the pension that [I have] is minimal in comparison to the three salaries that (…) I earned [in Chile] because they granted me a really really bad pension (…). My family and I can’t live on that pension.” 65 61. About his present situation in the United Kingdom, the effects of exile and his life before the military coup in Chile, Mr. García Lucero observed the following: (…) we would have liked to have cooperated with England, to have produced something, to have worked (…) My wife is also unable to work, she (…) understands very little English (…), not enough to hold down a job. (…) We (…) have very much wanted to go to Chile, but we don’t because we don’t have the money. The money we have week to week has to be spent on food; the money is not even enough to buy a handkerchief; (…) in Chile I (…) worked all the jobs at the race track (…) In my house we lived very well, (…) we had someone to do the cleaning and (…) the cooking, because I had money to pay for it; we don’t have that kind of life in England. So, we lost a very good lifestyle in Chile. (…) The benefit (…) is very, very small, because what the State gives here in England is enough to eat only once a day, and a very poor meal. If I was working in England, things would be different, I would eat very well, I would have what everyone else has; but I can’t because I was unable to learn English. 66 VI. ANALYSIS OF THE LAW A. Preliminary considerations 62. The Commission must begin by pointing out that since the petitioners reformulated their petition -limiting the facts alleged to the State’s duty to investigate and redress the alleged torture- in its admissibility report, the Commission focused on these arguments. As a result, in the examination of this case, the Commission did not consider the arguments that had been originally presented by the petitioners concerning the Chilean State’s responsibility for acts of torture. 63. Second, the IACHR observes that the facts alleged by the petitioners regarding the failure to investigate the acts of torture began prior to the date on which Chile deposited its instrument of ratification of the American Convention. However, this does not prevent the Commission from examining that State’s alleged violations of its obligations under the American Declaration. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights explicitly recognized the binding force of the American Declaration when it wrote that “[a]rticles 1(2)(b) and 20 of the Commission's Statute define the competence of that body with respect to the human rights enunciated in the Declaration, 64 Annex 4. Testimony of Mr. Leopoldo García Lucero, taped on October 1, 2008, presented by the petitioners at a public hearing held during the Commission’s 133rd session, October 27, 2008. Audio available at http://www.cidh.oas.org/. See also the transcript of the testimony attached as “Annex 4” to the communication received on October 28, 2008. Evidence not contested by the State. Free translation made by the IACHR. 65 Annex 4. Testimony of Mr. Leopoldo García Lucero, taped on October 1, 2008, presented by the petitioners at a public hearing held during the Commission’s 133rd session, October 27, 2008. Audio available at http://www.cidh.oas.org/. See also the transcript of the testimony attached as “Annex 4” to the communication received on October 28, 2008. Evidence not contested by the State. Free translation made by the IACHR. 66 Annex 4. Testimony of Mr. Leopoldo García Lucero, taped on October 1, 2008, presented by the petitioners at a public hearing held during the Commission’s 133rd session, October 27, 2008. Audio available at http://www.cidh.oas.org/. See also the transcript of the testimony attached as “Annex 4” to the communication received on October 28, 2008. Evidence not contested by the State. Free translation made by the IACHR.