evaluating them, has stated that it “assesses positively the policy of reparation for human rights violations established by the State.” 199 In the instant case, on June 14, 2006, in his capacity as a victim of torture and “political imprisonment,” Mr. García Lucero received a one-time payment under Law No. 19,992 and its Regulations, after he had chosen to receive the pension as “a person dismissed for political reasons” (supra para. 79). In addition, in his capacity as “a person dismissed for political reasons,” he received: (a) a monthly pension under Law No. 19,234 as of 2000 (supra para. 77), and (b) a special compensatory bonus payment under Law No. 20,134 (supra para. 78). 200 190. The Court is unable to analyze whether these reparations are “sufficient, effective and complete,” because an analysis of this kind should be based on the examination of the harm caused by the acts that began to be implemented at the time of Mr. García Lucero’s detention on September 16, 1973, and, in any case, before March 11, 1990 (supra para. 36). Nevertheless, it should be noted 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, cannot result in an obstruction of the possibility of the victims, pursuant to the rights to judicial guarantees and protection, filing actions to claim reparations. In view of this relationship between administrative reparation programs and the possibility of filing actions to claim reparations, it is pertinent for the Court to examine the representatives’ arguments in this regard, and also those of the State. 191. The words of the Committee against Torture should be recalled in this regard when it indicated that: “[a] State’s failure to investigate, criminally prosecute, or to allow civil proceedings related to allegations of acts of torture in a prompt manner may constitute a de facto denial of redress […],” and that: particular, a 50 percent increase in the amount of the monthly reparation pension; the empowerment of the President of the Republic to grant a maximum of 200 non-contributory pensions and the expansion of health benefits. In addition to the foregoing, the State adopted the following reparation measures: (i) the Program to support Political Prisoners for individuals in custody at March 11, 1990; (ii) the Comprehensive Health Service and Reparation Program (PRAIS) for those affected by human rights violations; (iii) the Human Rights Program of the Ministry of the Interior); (iv) technological improvements to the Forensic Medicine Service; (v) National Returnees Office; (vi) the Program for those Politically Dismissed; (vii) the restitution of or compensation for property seized and acquired by the State; (viii) the establishment of the Human Rights Dialogue Committee, and Conversation Table), and ix) the presidential initiative “No hay Mañana sin Ayer” of President Ricardo Lagos. Lastly, the State has erected several monuments in homage to the victims of human rights violations.” 199 Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 161. Similarly, expert witness Cath Collins stated that “[t]he measures of reparation implemented in Chile as of 1990 are among the most complete aspects of its process of transitional justice.” This expert witness also stated that “there has been a strong discrepancy between these public policies and the judicial practice in the case of civil complaints,” an aspect that is analyzed below as it relates to this case (expert opinion provided by Cath Collins, supra). 200 It should also be pointed out that, in its final written arguments, the State indicated that, under Law No. 20,403, in February 2010, a further bonus payment was awarded to Mr. García Lucero. Since neither he nor his representative collected the payment, it expired in September 2011, and was then was incorporated into his pension in March 2013. The payment voucher amounted to $490,000 pesos (US$1,031.50). In this regard, the representatives indicated that, at that date, Mr. García Lucero had not been notified of the payment and that “it has not been possible to verify it because the bank statements for April 2013 (which relate to banking movements in March) have not yet reached him in the United Kingdom, and Chile has not sent any proof of it […].” It should be clarified that this payment was not provided as a form of reparation for the torture or for the violations alleged in this case. They indicated that the payment corresponds to the adjustment of payments made under Law No. 20,403 of 2009, which “adjusts the payments to public sector workers, grants the Christmas bonuses indicated, and the benefits mentioned.” 61