67. On January 27, 1999, the 8th Civil Court denied the request for reparation in the Morales proceedings, since it considered that under civil law provisions the action for compensation had prescribed and was incompatible with Law 19.123 63. The plaintiffs appealed that ruling before the CAS, which conformed to the lower court's decision on December 10, 2002. 64 On December 18, 2002, the plaintiffs filed an appeal for annulment of that judgment before the CSL, which declared it "lapsed" on March 25, 2003, 65 for failure to have paid for some photocopies, so that the file was returned to the original court. 68. In 1999, the wide and children of Hipólito Cortés filed a civil law suit for reparation of damages causes by his death with the 2nd Civil Court in La Serena (Case Record No. 1122-99).66 On March 9, 2001, the judge in the case deemed the extrajudicial execution proven and considered that the reparation pensions and awards granted under Law 19.123 did not exclude compensation for moral prejudice. 67 Furthermore, that Court deemed that the second paragraph in Article 38 of the Political Constitution of the State provides that "Any person whose rights should have been adversely affected by the Administration of the State, the Bodies thereof or the Municipalities, is entitled to file complaint in courts established by law [...], without prejudice to the responsibility which might affect the officer who should have caused harm." Therefore, since it is a question of the State's non-contractual liability which, in light of what was correctly adduced, has not prescribed, it should be determined that the petition formulated by the respondent is, on the contrary, admissible. 68 69. Consequently, the aforementioned court decided to admit the claim and to order compensation for moral prejudice in the amount of fifteen million pesos for the spouse and each of the children.69 It also ordered that amounts granted in the form of compensation awards and pensions be deducted from that amount.70 70. On April 9, 2002, ruling on an appeal filed by the Chilean Treasury, the Court of Appeals of La Serena decided to revoke the judgment of the first instance court, because it considered that the five year prescription period had elapsed, since the events had occurred in 1973. It therefore upheld the Treasury's argument that the action had prescribed and the compensation requested was incompatible with enforcement of Law 19.123.71 71. On May 7, 2003, the CSJ rejected the appeal for annulment filed by the plaintiff and the request that the judgment be quashed, because it considered that the action had been brought after the four- 63 8th Civil Court. Judgment of January 27, 1999, Morales Lucía/Chilean Treasury, Case Record No. 4720-97, Twelfth and Fifteenth Whereas Clauses. Attached to the petition of September 1, 2003. 64 CAS, Judgment of Tuesday, December 10, 2002. Attached to the petition of September 1, 2003. 65 Resolution of March 25, 2003. Attached to the petition presented on September 3, 2003. 66 2nd Civil Court of La Serena, Patricia Cortés against the Chilean Treasury, Judgment of March 9, 2001. Second Whereas Clause. Attached to the petition presented on September 3, 2003. 67 2nd Civil Court of La Serena, Patricia Cortés against the Chilean Treasury, Judgment of March 9, 2001. Eleventh and Twentieth Whereas Clauses. Attached to the petition of September 3, 2003. 68 2nd Civil Court of La Serena, Patricia Cortés against the Chilean Treasury, Judgment of March 9, 2001. Sixteenth Whereas Clause. Attached to the petition of September 3, 2003. 69 2nd Civil Court of La Serena, Patricia Cortés against the Chilean Treasury, Judgment of March 9, 2001. Twenty-first Whereas Clause. Attached to the petition of September 3, 2003. 70 2nd Civil Court of La Serena, Patricia Cortés against the Chilean Treasury, Judgment of March 9, 2001. First Declarative Clause. Attached to the petition of September 3, 2003. 71 Court of Appeals of La Serena. Judgment of April 9, 2002, Eighth Whereas Clause. 13