Indeed, the Court takes note that, in 2004, the State acknowledged that Mr. García Lucero was a victim of torture and has indicated that it is not the State’s intention to “avoid its obligation to repair the harm caused to don Leopoldo’s physical and mental health.” In addition, the State has implemented public reparation policies for victims of torture and “political imprisonment” that include measures of rehabilitation. However, Mr. García Lucero resides in the United Kingdom and, consequently, currently has no access to these programs. 232. Nevertheless, the Court appreciates that the State has provided Mr. García Lucero with ‘Multistim Sensor’ “medical equipment” to treat his condition. 233. Based on the preceding considerations and the particularities of this case, the Court assesses positively the State’s initiative to take measures to improve Mr. García Lucero’s well-being and urges the State to provide a discretionary sum of money in pounds sterling that is reasonably adequate to cover the costs of his medical and psychological treatments in his current place of residence in the United Kingdom. D. Guarantees of representatives non-repetition requested by the Commission and the D.1) Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 234. The Commission asked the Court to order Chile to “adopt the measures needed to permanently void the effects of Decree Law No. 2191 […] so that it does not pose an obstacle to the investigation, prosecution and punishment of other similar violations that occurred in Chile, and the rights of the victims to truth, justice and reparations.” 235. The representatives requested, as measures of non-repetition related to the right to reparation and the right of access to justice, that: (a) “article 15 of Law No. 19,992 of 2004 regarding the 50-year confidentiality of the information gathered by the Valech Commission be declared unconstitutional”; (b) the Court rule on the non-applicability of ‘semiprescription’ or gradual prescription, or other penal benefits such as good conduct, in cases of crimes against humanity; (c) the Court rule on “the international obligation of States with regard to the proportionality of the punishment in relation to the violation committed and, by referring to the said benefits under Chilean penal law, this would provide an opportunity to establish guidelines in this regard”; (d) “a simple and effective remedy be incorporated into the [Chilean] legal system that allows victims of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment to claim and accede to effective and adequate reparation”; (e) “the legal obstacles that prevent filing a civil action to claim damages be removed”; (f) “the content of the statute of limitations for the civil action [be amended] when applied to crimes against humanity such as torture,” and (g) “a unit be created that is specialized in the investigation of cases of torture and illegal detention that took place during the dictatorship.” 236. The State contested the measures requested and, regarding Decree Law No. 2,191, indicated that “it has no practical application in Chile, because the country’s courts of justice have all stated that […] it is not applicable to crimes and offenses that violate human rights.” Chile also advised the Court that the State “has examined different ways of ensuring that this law formally ceases to have legal effects in [its] legal system.” D.2) Considerations of the Court 73