and in comparative law, to the effect that judicial actions for reparation of harm done by international crimes, such as crimes against humanity, should not be subject to prescription. 128. The Commission underscores that in the Almonacid Arellano et al. case, the Inter-American Court established that the military dictatorship was characterized by the existence of crimes against humanity.158 In the words of the Court: [The Court] finds that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that in 1973 [...] the commission of crimes against humanity, including murder committed in the course of a generalized or systematic attack against certain sectors of the civil population, was in violation of a binding rule of international law. Said prohibition to commit crimes against humanity is a ius cogens rule, and the punishment of such crimes is obligatory pursuant to the general principles of international law.159 129. In accordance with the established facts and the dates on which the primary violations for which the alleged victims in this case seek reparation all occurred or began to occur as of September 1973, the Commission considers that they form part of the crimes against humanity committed during the military dictatorship. The State did not contest this characterization of the facts. Accordingly, the Commission considers that applying the statute of limitations to the civil actions for reparation filed in the instant case constituted an obstacle to effective access to justice and to materialization of the victims’ right to receive reparation. 130. Based on the foregoing considerations, the Commission concludes that the State of Chile violated the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection established in Articles 8.1 and 25.1 of the American Convention, i conjunction with the obligations established in Articles 1.1 and 2 of the same instrument, to the detriment of Maria Laura Órdenes Guerra, Ariel Luis Antonio, Marta Elizabeth, Augusto Oscar, Gloria Laura Astris and Maria Laura Elena Alcayaga Órdenes; Lucía Morales Compagnon, Jorge Roberto, Carolina Andrea, Lucía Odette and María Teresa Morales Osorio; Alina María Barraza Codoceo, Eduardo Patricio, Marcia Alejandra, Patricia Auristela, Nora Isabel, Hernán Alejandro Cortés Barraza; Mario Melo Acuña, Ilia María Pradenas Pérez and Carlos Gustavo Melo; Pamela Adriana Vivanco; Elena Alejandrina Vargas; and Magdalena Mercedes Navarrete and Alberto, Patricio Hernán and Víctor Eduardo Reyes Navarrete. VI. CONCLUSIONS 131. Based on the considerations of fact and law contained in this report, the Commission concludes that the Chilean State is responsible for violation of the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection, established in Articles 8.1 and 25.1 of the American Convention, both in conjunction with the general obligation to respect and ensure rights and the duty to adopt domestic legal provisions established in Articles 1.1 and 2 of the same instrument, to the detriment of the victims in the instant case. VII. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Based on the arguments of fact and law set forth above, RECOMMENDS: THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, 1. Making reparation to victims for the violations declared in this report. As part of that reparation, the State must adopt the measures need to provide an effective judicial remedy so that the victims can file their claims and obtain a decision with respect to reparations. Compliance with this recommendation is independent of the administrative reparations program. 158 Cf. I/A Court H.R., Case of Almonacid-Arellano et al. v. Chile. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, par. 99. 159 I/A Court H.R., Case of Almonacid-Arellano et al. v. Chile. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, par. 99. 27