that occurred during the dictatorship, “it is not legally admissible to request further compensation for the same facts from the Treasury.” 178. Despite the above, it asserted that there is a possibility of filing a claim against the State, indicating that, in this regard “there is no single [legal] text that systematizes the responsibility of the State, but rather it is embodied in different norms of legal and constitutional rank (international human rights treaties).” Among these norms, it mentioned “articles 748 [to] 752 of the Code of Civil Procedure,” which regulates the “finance proceeding,” which is “a written proceeding processed under the rules of the ordinary major claims civil proceedings.” According to the State, this procedure “has proved to be an effective way to obtain civil compensation.” 179. In this regard, it clarified with regard to “the statute of limitations” that “this should not operate in relation to all actions designed to obtain compensation without considering or distinguishing the nature of the cause of the action.” It indicated that, “in this regard,” the facts in question were allegedly “crimes against humanity.” It specified, in response to a request from the Court that it forward the norm that regulates the statute of limitations in civil actions, that: Regarding the legal provisions that regulate the statute of limitations in civil actions, it should be clarified that, in Chile, the source of civil responsibility are norms of international human rights law that are fully incorporated into domestic law, pursuant to the provisions of article 5 of the Constitution of the Republic[. …] Thus, […] the guiding principle regarding civil responsibility […] is regulated in norms and principles of international human rights law. 175 180. The State specified that: According to a report prepared by the Criminal Attorney’s Office of the Santiago Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, a final judgment has been delivered in 93 cases of on crimes of torture committed during the military government and, as appropriate, on the corresponding civil claims filed […]; it is in the civil jurisdiction where most of the judgments in which the said action was admitted are to be found, in cases in which it was chosen to exercise the civil action together with the criminal action. 181. In the same report, the State also explained: That 202 civil court cases have been identified that are related to human rights violations which took place during the military government. Of these cases, 19 are related exclusively to the torture of civilians and the torture of officials. Some of the latter have concluded with final judgments in first instance, which haves not yet been executed, in which the Treasury has been sentenced to pay different types of compensation to the victims. D.2) Considerations of the Court 182. To the extent that, when violated, treaty-based rights entail the State’s obligation to make the reparation of the violations of those rights possible, 176 the existence of the legal 175 In this regard, it mentioned, “specifically,” Article 63 of the Convention. 176 Indeed, a principle of international law establishes that the State must make adequate reparation for the harm caused by the violation of its international obligations. Since it is a norm that is obligatory for the State, the principle indicated is applicable in relation to the binding international instruments for the protection of human rights that are part of the inter-American system. Cf. Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 07, para. 25; Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of May 25, 2001. Series C No. 76 para. 78. This judgment cites “PCIJ, Factory at Chorzow (Merits), 1928, (Ser. A) No. 17, Judgement No. 13, 13 September 1928, para. 29.” The said decision establishes that whenever a right established in any rule of international law is violated by act or omission, a new legal relationship automatically arises. This relationship is established between the subject to whom the act can be imputed, who must “respond” by means of adequate reparation, and the subject who has the right to claim the reparation owing to failure to comply with the obligation. In this regard, the Permanent Court of International 55