203. The representatives have also indicated that the remedies referred to lack of “effectiveness,” in view of the application of a statute of limitations to the filing of civil actions which, according to them, article 2332 of the Civil Code establishes at “four years following the occurrence of the offense.” It should be emphasized that the Court asked the State to forward the norms that regulate the statute of limitations for civil actions and, in response, the State argued that, “regarding the legal provisions that regulate the statute of limitations in the case of civil actions, it should be indicated that, in Chile, the source of civil responsibility is provided by norms of international human right law.” However, the Court takes note of the information presented by the representatives on article 2332 of the Civil Code, which was not contested. 204. According to the information provided by the representatives, this Court notes that even though article 2332 of the Civil Code established a statute of limitations of four years from the occurrence of the offense, the domestic courts have admitted complaints related to crimes concerning human rights violations committed during the military regime. 218 Thus, the representatives themselves indicated, in their pleadings and motions brief, that a civil action under the “finance proceeding” filed in relation to human rights violations committed during the military regime was successful before the Supreme Court. They also indicated on that occasion that, “within the Chilean system of justice, they were minority decisions” those that “establishe[d] that the objection of the statute of limitations for the civil action against the State is inadmissible.” However, in their final written arguments, they indicated that “[c]laims for compensation […] that are not heard in the criminal jurisdiction are generally admitted by the courts of first instance or by the courts of appeal.” They also indicated that, after 2007, the Supreme Court declared admissible 27 claims for compensation related to “crimes perpetrated during the military dictatorship.” 205. Furthermore, regarding the possibility of a civil action for reparation during criminal proceedings, the Court refers back to its considerations in relation to the State’s lack of diligence to investigate the facts immediately, so that this non-compliance includes obstacles to the claim for measures of reparation in the criminal jurisdiction (supra para. 138). Even though, in general, the considerations included on the statute of limitations for civil actions in relation to possible claims for reparation filed in the criminal jurisdiction may be pertinent, it is not necessary analyze the matter in this case. D.2.2.3) Conclusion 218 Regarding the relationship between claims for measures of reparation and prescription of civil actions relating to gross human rights violations, it should be taken into account that, in the ambit of the United Nations, The Set of Principles for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights through action to combat impunity indicates: “Prescription – of prosecution or penalty – in criminal cases shall not run for such period as no effective remedy is available. Prescription shall not apply to crimes under international law that are by their nature imprescriptible. When it does apply, prescription shall not be effective against civil or administrative actions brought by victims seek reparation for their injuries” (United Nations. Economic and Social Council. Commission on Human Rights. Sixty-first session. Item 17 on the provisional agenda. Promotion and protection of human rights. Impunity. Report of the independent expert to update the Set of principles to combat impunity, Diane Orentlicher. Addendum. Updated Set of principles for the protection and promotion of human rights through action to combat impunity. E/CN.4/2005/102/Add.1. 8 February 2005. Principle 23. (Citing the said document, expert witness Cath Collins stated that “in the case of crimes against humanity, the absence of prescription of criminal actions should be extended to civil actions” (Expert opinion of Cath Collins, supra). Specifically with regard to acts of torture, the United Nations Committee against Torture has stated that “[o]n account of the continuous nature of the effects of torture, statutes of limitations should not be applicable as these deprive victims of the redress, compensation, and rehabilitation due to them. […] States […] shall ensure that all victims of torture or ill-treatment, regardless of when the violation occurred or whether it was carried out by or with the acquiescence of a former regime, are able to access their rights to remedy and to obtain redress” (Committee against Torture. General Comment No. 3 (2012), supra, para. 40). 67