-21rights law. Thus, for example, in judgment 23.583-2014 of May 20, 2015, the Supreme Court
considered the following:
That, in the case of crimes such as those investigated, which the international community has
characterized as crimes against humanity, the civil suit brought against the Treasury is designed to obtain
comprehensive reparation for the damage inflicted by the acts of a State agent, consistent with the
international treaties ratified by Chile and the interpretation of domestic law, pursuant to the Constitution
of the Republic. Indeed, this right of victims and their next of kin is founded upon general principles of
international human rights law and their incorporation in international treaties ratified by Chile, which
oblige the State to recognize and protect this right to comprehensive reparation, by virtue of the second
paragraph of Article 5 and Article 6 of the Constitution.
That compensation for the harm caused by the crime, and the action for rendering such compensation
effective, are of the utmost importance when it comes to administering justice, in matters of concern to
the public interest and “material justice.” In the case under analysis, given the context in which the
wrongful act was committed, with the intervention of State agents during a period of extreme institutional
abnormality in which they represented the government of the time, and in which -at least in the instant
case- that power and representation were clearly abused, producing such serious grievances as the one
under study here, the State of Chile cannot evade its legal responsibility to make reparation for that de
jure debt […]
Thus, in the present case, the provisions of domestic law provided for in the Civil Code on the statute of
limitations for common civil actions for compensation for damages, invoked by the Treasury of Chile, are
not relevant, since they are in contradiction with the norms of international human rights law, which
protect the right of victims and their next of kin to receive due reparation, an international regulatory
statute that Chile has recognized. […]
That, in short, since the State has the obligation to make reparation to victims and their next of kin as
established by international human rights law, domestic law cannot be adduced as a sustainable argument
to exempt it from complying with that obligation […]
That, under those circumstances, the judges involved did indeed commit an error of law when they
accepted the objection that the civil claims brought against the State had prescribed: an error that
substantively influenced the ruling in the judgment, so that the appeal for annulment on the merits will
be upheld.65
86.
According to the Commission, the judicial remedy available in the Chilean legal system to
obtain compensation for human rights violations is a civil action for compensation. In all of the
victims’ cases, the judicial authorities rejected their claims in application of the statute of limitations
for a civil action. These decisions are final.
87.
The Commission considered that the application of the statute of limitations in such cases
constituted an unreasonable restriction of the possibility of obtaining reparation. It noted that this
does not imply a general opinion on that provision, but only with respect to its application to crimes
against humanity. Thus, it considered that, while the principle of legal certainty seeks to contribute
to public order and peace in social relations, the right to a judicial remedy to obtain reparation for
crimes against humanity does not undermine this principle, but rather strengthens it and
contributes to its optimization.
88.
The Commission considered that the rationale for the inadmissibility of applying the statute
of limitations to criminal proceedings in cases of serious human rights violations is related to the
fundamental importance of shedding light on the facts and obtaining justice for the victims.
Therefore, the Commission indicated that it finds no reason to apply a different standard to an
equally fundamental aspect such as reparations in this type of cases; consequently, legal actions
Supreme Court of Justice of Chile. 23583-2014. Non-applicability of the statute of limitations for reparatory actions against the Treasury
for human rights violations. May 20, 2015. Available at: http://www.i-juridica.com/2015/05/21/suprema-23583-2014imprescriptibilidad-de-la-accion-reparatoria-en-contra-del-fisco-por-violaciones-a-derechos-humanos/.
65