254. Within one year, of notification of this Judgment, the State must provide the Court with a report on the measures adopted to comply with it. X OPERATIVE PARAGRAPHS 255. Therefore, THE COURT DECIDES, unanimously, 1. To reject partially the preliminary objection filed by the State concerning the lack of temporal and material competence of the Court, in accordance with paragraphs 24 to 42 of this Judgment. DECLARES, unanimously, that: 2. The State is responsible for the violation of the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection, recognized in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof and to the obligations established in Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, to the detriment of Leopoldo García Lucero, for the excessive delay in opening an investigation, in accordance with paragraphs 121 to 127 and 138 of this Judgment. 3. The State is not responsible for the violation of the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection, recognized in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof and Article 9 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, in relation to the possibilities of claiming measures of reparation, in accordance with paragraphs 194 and 199 to 206 of this Judgment. 4. It is not appropriate to issue a ruling on the alleged international responsibility of the State based on the presumed failure to comply with the obligation to adopt provisions of domestic law established in Article 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in the terms of paragraphs 150 to 161 of this Judgment. However, the Court reaffirms its decision in the judgment in the case of Almonacid Arellano et al., in which it established that “given its nature, Decree Law No. 2,191 lacks legal effects and cannot continue representing an obstacle to the investigation of the facts that constitute this case, or to the identification and punishment of those responsible; nor can it have the same or a similar impact on other cases of violations of rights recognized in the American Convention that occurred in Chile.” 5. It is not appropriate to issue a ruling on the alleged international responsibility of the Stated based on the presumed violation of the right to humane treatment, and of movement and residence recognized in Articles 5(1) and 22 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in accordance with paragraphs 129, 209 and 210 of this Judgment. 77