the victims of violations to have access to justice. However, other kinds of administrative and judicial mechanisms, such as disciplinary, contentious-administrative or civil proceedings, may also be useful or effective to help establish the truth, and determine the scope and dimensions of State responsibility, and the reparation of the violations committed. 185 Thus, the possibility of obtaining measures of reparation should not be made dependent on the initiation, continuation or result of criminal proceedings, because this may restrict or excessively condition that possibility and, therefore, result in a deprivation of the right of the victims to have access to justice. 186 184. Based on the above, it should be established that it is admissible for the Court to examine whether, independently of the investigation of the facts and the claims that could be made in this context, Mr. García Lucero, and his family members, had access to other mechanisms for making their claims. 185. However, in this case, the possibilities of making a claim have not been reduced to the possibility of individual actions, but rather the State established an administrative reparation program, and Mr. García Lucero has received benefits from it. The State argued that this circumstance makes other claims for reparation inadmissible (supra paras. 174 and 175), and the representatives expressed a different opinion, arguing the inexistence of effective remedies to claim integral reparation. Consequently, in light of the State obligation to make reparation for human rights violations, the Court must examine the relationship between the right of access to justice, based on the rights to judicial guarantees and protection, and the existence of administrative programs of reparation in order to determine whether, in this case, it was admissible for Mr. García Lucero and his family members to have access to remedies to claim, individually, measures of reparation and, if appropriate, assess whether they were provided by the State. Owing to the fact that the State, pursuant to legislation enacted after 1990, established benefits and a “right” related to measures of rehabilitation in favor of such individuals (supra para. 73), this Court will take into consideration that, in 2004, Chile recognized Mr. García Lucero as one of the people who had been a victim of torture and “political imprisonment” during the government of the military dictatorship. D.2.1) The administrative reparation programs and the rights to judicial guarantees and protection 186. In the sphere of international law, documents have been published based on the rights of the individual as a victim of unlawful acts. In this regard, it is worth citing the 185 Similarly, See Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 130, and Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia, supra, para. 154. See also Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, supra, para. 157, and Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay, supra, para. 128. Added to the foregoing, it should be underscored that in the universal international sphere it has been stated that “[r]emedies for gross violations of international human rights law […] include the victim’s right to the following as provided for under international law: (a) Equal and effective access to justice; (b) Adequate, effective and prompt reparation for harm suffered[, and] (c) Access to relevant information concerning violations and reparation mechanisms” (Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Norms and of Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law. Resolution 60/147 adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 16 December 2005, para. 11). 186 The Committee against Torture has indicated that “[n]otwithstanding the evident benefits to victims afforded by a criminal investigation, a civil proceeding and the victim’s claim for reparation should not be dependent on the conclusion of a criminal proceeding. [… C]ompensation should not be unduly delayed until criminal liability has been established. Civil liability should be available independently of criminal proceedings and the necessary legislation and institutions for such purpose should be in place.” Committee against Torture. General Comment No. 3 (2012), supra, para. 26. 58