is a party. 193 Referring to its Article 14, which concerns the obligation to ensure measures of reparation, 194 the Committee against Torture has stated that “[t]he comprehensive reparative concept therefore entails restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition and refers to the full scope of measures required to redress violations under the Convention.” 195 The Committee also stated that: Reparation must be adequate, effective and comprehensive. States parties are reminded that in the determination of redress and reparative measures provided or awarded to a victim of torture or ill-treatment, the specificities and circumstances of each case must be taken into consideration and redress should be tailored to the particular needs of the victim and be proportionate to the gravity of the violations committed against them. 196 189. In addition, the Court has indicated that “if domestic mechanisms exist to determine forms of reparation, these procedures and [their] results must be assessed” and that, to this end, it should be considered whether they “are objective, reasonable and effective.” 197 In the case of Chile, the Court has noted the existence of difference measures 198 and, when reparations and costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, para. 43)]. In this regard, the Court has considered that ‘when interpreting a treaty, not only the formal agreements and instruments related to it are taken into account (second paragraph of Article 31 of the Vienna Convention), but also the system within which it is inserted (third paragraph of Article 31’; namely, international human rights law” (Cf. The Right to Information on Consular Assistance within the Framework of the Guarantee of Due Process of Law. Advisory Opinion OC-16/99 of October 1, 1999. Series A No. 16, para. 113, and Case of Artavia Murillo et al. (“In Vitro fertilization”) v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 28, 2012. Series C. No. 257, para. 191). 193 The treaty was adopted and opened to signature, ratification and accession by the United Nations General Assembly in resolution 39/46, of December 10, 1984. It entered into force on June 26, 1987. The State of Chile ratified it on September 30, 1988. 194 This article states that “[e]ach State party shall ensure in its legal system that the victim of an act of torture obtains redress and has an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation, including the means for as full rehabilitation as possible.” 195 Committee against Torture. General Comment Nº 3 (2012), supra, para. 2. Expert witness Sveaass agreed with this assessment, and referred to this General Comment repeatedly in support of her expert opinion and in this indicated that “General Comment [No. 3 of the Committee against Torture] clarifies the standards and sets out the specific obligation and the ways in which reparation can be ensured. [… I]t represents the standard for evaluating compliance with [the obligation to provide reparation to victims of torture], and based on this, [her expert opinion] refer[red] to the text of the General Comment” (merits file, tome II, fs. 521 and 522). Similarly, expert witness Treue indicated that “[a] basic reference point for international standards regarding reparation, specifically for victims of torture and ill-treatment is General Comment No. 3 […] of the Committee against Torture (Expert opinion provided by affidavit by Felícitas Treue (merits file, tome II, fs. 629 to 641). In this regard, the Court has considered that reparation is the generic term that cover the different ways in which a State can remedy the international responsibility it has incurred (such as, restitutio in integrum, compensation, satisfaction, and guarantees of non-repetition). Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No 42 para. 85, and Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador, supra, para. 164. 196 Committee against Torture. General Comment No. 3 (2012), supra, para. 6. 197 Cf. Case of Gomes Lund et al. ("Guerrilha do Araguaia") v. Brazil, supra, para. 303, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra, para. 246. 198 Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 82.29 to 82.33. The Court considered it proved in that case that “[o]n February 8, 1992, Law No. 19,123 creating the National Reparation and Reconciliation Corporation was published in the Official Gazette. Its purpose was ‘to coordinate, implement and promote any actions necessary to comply with the recommendations contained in the Report of the National Truth and Reconciliation Commission.’ To that effect, a monthly pension was granted to the next of kin of the victims of human rights violations or political violence; they were granted the right to receive certain free medical and educational benefits, and the children of victims were exempted from obligatory military service, if they requested this. […] On November 11, 2003, Supreme Decree No. 1,040 was published in the Official Gazette creating the National Commission on Political Imprisonment and Torture, for the Clarification of the Truth with regard to individuals who were deprived of liberty and tortured for political reasons during the military dictatorship. Moreover, in its final report, the Commission proposed individual measures of reparation (established in Law No. 19,992) and also collective and symbolic measures. […] On October 29, 2004, Law No. 19,980 was passed. This law amended Law No. 19,123 […], by expanding the benefits and adding new ones for the next of kin of the victims, including, in 60