III. A. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES ON MERITS Position of the petitioner General arguments 13. The petitioner alleges that in all the cases crimes against humanity were committed -kidnapping followed by murder or forced disappearance -- by State security forces during the military dictatorship. He indicates that civil suits for financial compensation were brought against the State, which were rejected on the statute of limitations grounds established in the Civil Code. 14. The petitioner argues that the cases presented in the petitions are crimes against humanity, for which, under international law, civil and criminal actions do not prescribe. In that regard, he argued that letting crimes against humanity prescribe violated the rights to judicial protection and judicial guarantees. He further argues that applying the statute of limitations (prescription) contravenes the obligation to adopt domestic legal measures established in Article 2 of the American Convention. On this he argues that customary law establishes that a State that signs a treaty must adopt domestic legal measures to adjust its own laws in line with its international obligations. In a similar vein, he argues that allowing prescription disregards Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which establishes that States may not invoke the provisions of their internal law as justification for their failure to perform an international treaty. 15. In relation to the obligation to make reparation contemplated in Article 1.1 of the American Convention, the petitioner argues that the pensions and compensation awards (bonos de compensación) granted to the alleged victims are welfare payments that could not be considered an authentic settlement of damages. Accordingly, he points out that Chilean courts have explicitly ruled that such benefits amount only to welfare relief. In addition, he points out that, pursuant to Law No. 19.123, pensions are compatible with other forms of reparation and that the amounts of the pensions and reparation awards are insufficient and below international standards for damages in cases of grave human rights violations. 16. The petitioner argues that compensation for damages must include reparation for consequential damages, loss of earnings, moral prejudice and destruction of a life plan or career. He adds that such factors can only be assessed by a court that can analyze the particular and concrete circumstances of each victim's situation. 17. The petitioner complains that applying civil law standards meant to govern relations between private persons to a conflict of public law governed by the Constitution and international human rights treaties is "an extraordinary error, detrimental to the interests of victims and their family members, and a violation of international human rights law." Thus, when judges apply civil law provisions they deny the right to reparation and involve the State in a flagrant breach of the American Convention because, under Article 2 thereof, States must adapt domestic law to the provisions of said Convention. Case 12.521 – Specific arguments – María Laura Órdenes Guerra and children (next of kin of Augusto Andino Alcalaya Aldunate) 18. The petitioner argues that, in the quest for judicially ordered comprehensive reparation, in 1997 María Órdenes filed a claim for damages (demanda de indemnización) with the Eighth Civil Court of Santiago, Chile (hereinafter "the 8th Civil Court") on account of moral prejudice brought about by the State agents who kidnapped and murdered her husband Augusto Alcayaga in 1973 and by denial of justice and the lack of information regarding those facts; thereby initiating the “Órdenes María with Chilean Treasury" proceedings. The petitioner points out that the suit was filed on the basis of the report of the National Truth and Reconciliation Commission (hereinafter "the Rettig Commission"), which recognized Augusto Alcayaga as a victim of kidnapping and murder during the military dictatorship. 3