-1554. On January 27, 1999, the Eighth Civil Court denied the request for reparation in this case, because it considered that under civil law provisions, the indemnity action was time-barred and incompatible with Law 19.123. The plaintiffs appealed this decision before the CAS, which upheld the lower court’s decision on December 10, 2002. On December 18, 2002, the plaintiffs filed a motion for annulment before the Supreme Court, which dismissed it on March 25, 2003, for failure to have paid for some photocopies. The file was then returned to the original court. 55. Under the provisions of Law 19.980 of 2004, the four children of Jorge Osorio received reparation awards, namely: Carolina Andrea Osorio Morales (7,700,317.00 Chilean pesos), Jorge Roberto Osorio Morales (6,163,383.00 Chilean pesos), Lucía Odette Osorio Morales (10,000,000.00 Chilean Pesos) and María Teresa Osorio Morales (10,000,000.00 Chilean pesos).44 A.5 Situation of the next of kin of Patricia Cortés and their case against the Chilean Treasury 56. In relation to the acts committed against Hipólito Cortés and Jorge Osorio (supra paras. 48 to 50), and under the provisions of Law 19.123 of 1992, Alina María Barraza Codoceo, wife of Hipólito Cortés, has been receiving a monthly pension45 since July of 1991. 57. In 1998, the remains of Hipólito Cortés were exhumed and identified; the findings showed that he had been tortured prior to his extrajudicial execution.46 Mr. Cortés is not included in the list of victims recognized in the report of the Valech Commission.47 58. In 1999, the wife and children of Hipólito Cortés filed a civil lawsuit before the Second Civil Court of La Serena (Case Record No. 1122-99) seeking reparation for damages on account of his death. On March 9, 2001, the judge in the case found the extrajudicial execution proven and decided that the reparation pensions and awards granted under Law 19.123 did not exclude compensation for moral prejudice.48 Consequently, the court decided to admit the claim and to order compensation for moral prejudice for the sum of 15 million Chilean pesos for the spouse and each of the children. It also ordered that the amounts granted in the form of compensation awards and pensions be deducted from that sum. 59. On April 9, 2002, upon ruling on the appeal filed by the Chilean Treasury, the Court of Appeals of La Serena decided to revoke the judgment of the first instance court, considering that the five-year statute of limitations had expired, since the events had occurred in 1973. It therefore accepted the Treasury’s arguments regarding the statute of limitations and that the compensation requested was incompatible with the application of Law 19.123. 60. On May 7, 2003, the Supreme Court rejected the motion for annulment filed by the plaintiff and the request that the judgment be quashed, noting that the action had been brought after the four-year statute of limitations period, provided for in Article 2.332 of the Civil Code, had elapsed. Faced with the motion for annulment, the Supreme Court considered that the contested judgment 44 Cf. Brief of observations of the State presented on November 21, 2008, before the Inter-American Commission. The amount received monthly from July 1991 until November of 2007 totals $36,627,798 Chilean pesos. She continues to receive the pension (brief of observations of the State submitted on November 21, 2008, before the Inter-American Commission). 45 46 Judgment of the Second Civil Court of La Serena, Patricia Cortés v. the Chilean Treasury, March 9, 2001. 47 Valech Commission. List of Persons Recognized as Victims, supra. Furthermore, that court considered that the second paragraph of Article 38 of the Chilean Constitution provides that “Any person whose rights have been adversely affected by the Administration of the State, its bodies or municipalities, is entitled to file a complaint in courts established by law, without prejudice to the responsibility which might affect the officer who 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. Cf. Judgment of the Second Civil Court of La Serena, Patricia Cortés v. the Chilean Treasury, supra (evidence file, folio 46). 48