206. Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that, in addition to the civil action in the context of criminal proceedings, Mr. García Lucero could have filed the “finance proceeding,” a remedy that he did not attempt. In addition, there is no record that, despite being deprived of access to certain measures of reparation established in Law No. 19,992, because he lived in the United Kingdom, Mr. García Lucero tried to file any claim in either the judicial or the administrative jurisdiction to question his impossibility of enjoying those benefits. The representatives have indicated that, in general, the courts of first instance and the appeals courts admit claims for compensation (supra para. 204), without justifying why, in this case, no claim was made or why a claim would not be admissible. The Commission did not submit any arguments in this regard either. Consequently, and because there is no record that Mr. García Lucero or his family members have tried to file claims, the Court finds that, in this case, there is insufficient evidence to allow it to conclude with the required degree of certainty that the domestic regulations on the prescription of civil actions has impeded Mr. García Lucero and his family members from filing claims. Therefore, in relation to the possibilities of filing claims for measures of reparation in this case, the Court does not find it proved that the State is responsible for violating the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection recognized in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this treaty and the obligation contained in Article 9 of the InterAmerican Convention against Torture. VIII FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT AND RESIDENCE A. Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 207. At the public hearing, the representatives stated that “it could be argued that the situation of don Leopoldo and his family also constitutes a violation of Article 22 of the American Convention 219 owing to the exile that he has had to endure.” In their final written arguments they indicated that the Court: Has jurisdiction to find [that the State is internationally responsible] for the exile because it constitutes a violation of Article 22, in particular paragraph 5. This is because Chile has known that [Mr. García Lucero] lives in exile, at least reasonably and specifically since 1993 when he applied for the benefits of the Law on Political Exiles and, despite this, Chile has continued denying him and his family the conditions required to be able to return. 208. They added that “his return must be made in conditions of legal, physical and material safety, including access to land and to means of subsistence. […] Chile, with the absolute absence of reparation policies for exiles, has not complied with these standards. B. Considerations of the Court 209. The Court notes that the Commission did not consider the violation of the right to movement and residence in its brief submitting the case to the Court, or in its Merits Report. However, the presumed victims or their representatives may cite rights other than those included by the Commission based on the facts presented by the latter. 220 The 219 The relevant part of Article 22 of the Convention establishes that: “5. No one can be expelled from the territory of the State of which he is a national or be deprived of the right to enter it.” […] 220 Cf. Case of the “Five Pensioners” v. Peru. Merits reparations and costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 155, and Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador, supra, para. 19. 68