201. The parties and the Commission have mentioned two remedies 214 for filing claims to obtain reparation: (a) the civil judicial complaint by means of the “finance proceeding,” 215 and (b) the claim for civil reparation within criminal proceedings. 216 However, they did not stipulate whether, by using these remedies, both measures of compensation and measures of rehabilitation can be claimed; or whether, if appropriate, the latter can be requested in the form of direct services or by claiming a sum of money equivalent to their costs. The representatives indicated that the “finance proceeding” is appropriate “to protect the right to integral reparation” (supra para. 168), and did not indicated that the claim in the criminal jurisdiction would not be appropriate for this purpose. 202. According to the representatives, despite the above, the domestic remedies are not apt to make the pertinent claims. 217 The Court underscores that the State did not agree that there were no appropriate remedies. It asserted that “the presumed victims have never requested or provided grounds for any judicial or extrajudicial measure in Chile designed to […] require redress […] for acts of torture […], so that it is not possible to speak of the denial of justice,” and argued that, consequently, “the subsidiary nature of the [interAmerican system] was disregarded” (supra para. 119). Since it has been proved that the presumed victim and his next of kin have not filed claims in the domestic sphere, the Court must analyze whether or not the appropriate remedies to make the corresponding claims exist within that framework. that the measures of rehabilitation ordered be complied with by the delivery of a sum of money to this end. Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of November 30, 2001. Series C No. 87, paras. 42 and 45; Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico, supra, paras. 220 and 221, and Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, supra, paras. 263 and 264. 214 Expert witness Cath Collins indicated, agreeing with what the parties had stated, that, in relation to the “civil complaints, […t]here are two main types of complaint: either associated with a criminal complaint, or separately” (Expert opinion of Cath Collins, supra). 215 The Court observes that “finance proceedings” are regulated in the Chilean Code of Civil Procedure. They are proceedings that, as indicated in article 748 of the said Code, follow the “procedures established for major claim proceedings in the ordinary jurisdiction, except for [certain] changes,” and with their own particularities, established by the following articles, because they are “proceedings in which the Treasury [has] an interest.” According to article 751 of the Civil Code, these particularities include the fact that whenever a final judgment is “unfavorable to the Treasury’s interests” and is not appealed, “it will be submitted to the respective appeals court for consultation, after the parties have been notified” (merits file, brief with final arguments of the State, annex I, fs. 1125 and 1126). 216 The civil action in the context of criminal proceedings is regulated in articles 59 to 69 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Article 59 indicates: General principle. The civil action filed only in order to obtain the restitution of matters, shall be filed always during the respective criminal proceedings, as established in article 189. Furthermore, during the processing of the criminal proceedings, the victim may file against the accused all the other actions aimed at claiming the civil responsibilities derived from the punishable act pursuant to the provisions of this Code. The victim may also file these civil actions before the corresponding civil court. Nevertheless, once the civil action has been admitted in the criminal proceedings, it cannot be filed again before a civil court. With the single exception indicated in the first paragraph, the other actions designed to obtain reparation for the civil consequences of the punishable act that were filed by persons other than the victim, or are addressed against persons other than the accused, shall be filed before the civil court that has competence under the general rules. 217 It should be clarified that the representatives have not claimed the absence of “adequate” remedies. In their arguments on the different remedies possible, they indicated their lack of effectiveness. Regarding the socalled “finance proceeding,” they have said that “even though a way exists to obtain justice (an adequate remedy and procedure), this remedy and procedure cannot be effective to obtain the protection of the right to integral reparation.” 66