opening of the domestic investigation more than 36 years after Mr. García Lucero left Chile following his expulsion from the country. Regarding the arguments about the disproportionality of the applicable punishments, the body of evidence does not reveal that the article on the so-called “semi-prescription” has been applied in the investigation underway, and there is insufficient evidence to consider it proved that this had an evident effect on the imposition of disproportionate punishments. 169 161. Based on the above, the Court does not find it appropriate to rule on the representatives’ arguments concerning articles 150 A and 150 B of the Criminal Code, article 330 of the Code of Military Justice, the statute of limitations, and the so-called “semiprescription.” Despite this, it is pertinent note that diligence in the investigation of the facts always entails, inter alia, that the State apply norms that, as necessary, permit the proper investigation and the punishment, as appropriate, of those responsible. D. Regarding the domestic proceedings to claim measures of reparation D.1) Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 162. The Commission asserted that “every victim of human rights violations has the right to receive integral reparation from the responsible State.” It acknowledged the reparations program implemented by the State, but indicated that this ‘is not part of the purpose of this case, [because] it has not and cannot be applied to Mr. García Lucero,” who “has not received any measure of reparation under this program.” Nevertheless, it noted that Mr. García Lucero had received a “bonus payment” as compensation for the torture he suffered, but stated that this is “not integral reparation for the specific case,” taking into account that he suffers from a permanent disability as a result [of this] torture. It affirmed that, in “the case of a [victim] with permanent physical and mental disability, […] States must adopt compensation and rehabilitation measures.” 163. In addition, the Commission indicated that Mr. García Lucero requires individual and family psychological therapy sessions, as well as physical therapy sessions, as measures of rehabilitation, and that even though the State has established a health-related reparations system known as “PRAIS,” the presumed victim is unable to avail himself of it, because he does not live in the country. In this regard, it stated that the right of “all victims of human rights violations” “to receive integral reparation” remains “wherever [the victim] resides.” It argued that, in this case, “it is not disputed” that “the framework of reparations in Chile excludes those who are in exile and who do not want or are unable to return to Chile.” It added that the “Court’s case law […] has indicated that reparations must be provided even when the persons is in exile and does not live in the country.” 169 The Court observes that expert witness Cath Collins indicated that “[t]he reduction of punishments owing to the granting of gradual prescription is […] one of the main explanations for the fact that only 30% of those convicted of human rights violations in Chile are ultimately imprisoned, because the initial sentences of most of the remaining 70% have been reduced in this way. It has been applied in all the [very few] final judgments for torture delivered to date.” The expert witness also stated that “[t]here are indications that some of the State’s lawyers and some judges of lower courts share [the] concerns [as regards imposing punishments proportionate to the severity of the crimes]. In August 2011, the San Miguel Court of Appeal ruled explicitly against the application of the gradual prescription of crimes against humanity. […] However, in view of the non-binding nature of the precedent as a jurisprudential reference, the differences of opinion in this regard […] give rise to a fairly inconsistent and unstable situation” (expert opinion of Cath Collins provided by affidavit, merits file, tome II, fs. 546 and 547). In this regard, this Court notes that the said consideration support the conclusion that it is uncertain what could happen as regards the imposing of punishments in relation to the ongoing investigation into the facts concerning Mr. García Lucero. 50