105. For their part, the representatives, in relation to both the investigation and the reparation, understood that Chile had violated, to the detriment of Mr. García Lucero and of his family members, the same rights indicated by the Commission, but “in relation to Article 1(1) of the Convention […] and Articles 6, 127 8 and 9 128 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture.” They also argued that, because it had failed to adapt its domestic law as regards the Decree-Law indicated by the Commission, and also with regard to other laws and measures (infra paras. 143 and 144), Chile had violated Article 2 of the American Convention, and Articles 1 129 and 6 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture. 130 They indicated that the State was obliged to provide reparation based on Articles 1(1) and 25 of the Convention, and 9 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture. Then, in their final written arguments, they stated that “the right to reparation […] arises” from the norms mentioned together with Article 8(1) of the Convention, and that “Chile […] has the obligation to respect and guarantee [this …] without discrimination, […] and in keeping with the general guarantees established in [the said] Article 8.” Among their arguments on the grounds for the right to reparation, they also mentioned that “the Convention even […] includes Article 63(1) on reparations.” 131 Likewise, if there is an accusation or well-grounded reason to believe that an act of torture has been committed within their jurisdiction, the States Parties shall guarantee that their respective authorities will proceed ex officio and immediately to conduct an investigation into the case and to initiate, whenever appropriate, the corresponding criminal proceedings. After all the domestic legal procedures of the respective State and the corresponding appeals have been exhausted, the case may be submitted to the international fora whose competence has been recognized by that State. 127 Article 6 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture stipulates that: In accordance with the terms of Article 1, the States Parties shall take effective measures to prevent and punish torture within their jurisdiction. The States Parties shall ensure that all acts of torture and attempts to commit torture are offenses under their criminal law and shall make such acts punishable by severe penalties that take into account their serious nature. The States Parties likewise shall take effective measures to prevent and punish other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment within their jurisdiction. 128 Article 9 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture establishes that: The States Parties undertake to incorporate into their national laws regulations guaranteeing suitable compensation for victims of torture. None of the provisions of this article shall affect the right to receive compensation that the victim or other persons may have by virtue of existing national legislation. 129 Article 1 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture establishes that: “[t]he States Parties undertake to prevent and punish torture in accordance with the terms of this Convention. 130 The representatives indicated that the State’s delay in opening the investigation violated Articles 5(1) and 8(1) of the Convention, in relation to its Article 1(1) and Article 8 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture. In addition, in their opinion, the investigation underway violates Articles 8(1) [and] 25(1) in relation to [Article] 1(1) of the Convention and Articles 6 and 7 (sic) of the Inter-American Convention against Torture.” As regards access to measures of reparation, they argued the violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, as well as of Article 9 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture. The Court observes that the representatives’ allusion to Article 7 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture in their final written arguments was made in isolation and without submitting any reasoning as to why they considered that it was violated. Consequently, and since its presentation was time-barred, the Court will not rule on the supposed violation of Article 7. 131 The representatives also stated that the obligation to provide redress “is intrinsically related to the obligation to investigate, to prosecute and to punish” and that, in the case of Mr. García Lucero, “the obligation to provide redress should have been met [… w]hen, in 1993 and 2004, [the State] received reasonable information providing grounds to believe that [he] had been tortured.” Regarding the alleged obligation to investigate, the representatives’ specific arguments in this regard are described below (infra paras. 110 to 117). 35