“Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power,” 187 the “Set of Principles for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights through Action to Combat Impunity,” 188 and the “Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law” 189 (hereinafter the “Basic Principles”). This illustrates a trend in the sphere of international law to recognize victims of unlawful acts as the holders of rights in this capacity, including with regard to measures of reparation and the right of access to justice in relation to those measures; even the International Court of Justice, which only has competence in litigations between States has ruled in this sense. 190 In this regard, the above-mentioned “Basic Principles” state that: A victim of a gross violation of international human rights law […] shall have equal access to an effective judicial remedy as provided for under international law. Other remedies available to the victim include access to administrative and other bodies, as well as mechanisms, modalities and proceedings conducted in accordance with domestic law. Obligations arising under international law to secure the right to access justice and fair and impartial proceedings shall be reflected in domestic laws. 187. Regarding torture, under the inter-American system, the protection against such acts established in the American Convention, “as well as ‘the international corpus juris concerning the protection of personal integrity,” is reinforced by the Inter-American Convention against Torture. 191 Specifically with regard to reparation, Article 9 of this treaty indicates the “undertak[ing]” of the States Parties “to incorporate into their national laws regulations guaranteeing suitable compensation for victims of torture.” This mandate complements the obligation to adopt the necessary provisions to make the pertinent treatybased rights effective, established in Article 2 of the American Convention. 188. In order to determine the scope of the State’s obligations with regard to the reparation of acts of torture, it is pertinent to take into account the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 192 to which Chile 187 Adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on November 29, 1985, by resolution 40/34. Principle 4 stipulates that: “[v]ictims should be treated with compassion and respect for their dignity. They are entitled to access to the mechanisms of justice and to prompt redress, as provided for by national legislation, for the harm that they have suffered.” 188 Adopted by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights on February 8, 2005. Principle 31 indicates: “Any human rights violation gives rise to a right to reparation on the part of the victim or his or her beneficiaries, implying a duty on the part of the State to make reparation and the possibility for the victim to seek redress from the perpetrator.” 189 Adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 16, 2005, by resolution 60/147. Principle 18 of this document stipulates the right of victims to “full and effective” reparation.” 190 In this regard, the judgment of the International Court of Justice of November 30, 2010, in the case of Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo is illustrative, because, even though it concerns a dispute between States, it took into account harm to an individual, even in relation to reparations. In its ruling, the Court noted that the dispute between the States related to the violation of human rights owing to the harm suffered by a national of the Republic of Guinea: Mr. Diallo. Consequently, the reparations awarded by the Court responded to the request for compensation made by Guinea, and were based on the harm suffered by the said person (Cf. para. 161). 191 Cf. Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, supra, paras. 276, 377, 378 and 379, and Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. ("Diario Militar") v. Guatemala, supra, para. 233. Article 16 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture stipulates that it “shall not limit the provisions of[, inter alia,] the American Convention [… and] other conventions on the subject, […] with respect to the crime of torture.” This article establishes that the protection provided by the treaty is complementary or contributes to, but does not exclude or substitute, the provisions of the other norms it refers to. 192 In this regard, the Court has indicated that “according to the systematic argument, norms must be interpreted as part of a whole, the significance and scope of which must be established based on the legal system to which they belong [(Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits 59