-22for reparations for the harm caused by international crimes should not be subject to statutes of limitations. Because of the dates on which they occurred, or began to occur, the Commission considered that the primary violations for which the victims in this case seek reparation- all of them occurred after September 1973 - are part of the crimes against humanity committed during the military dictatorship. Therefore, the application of the statute of limitations to their civil actions for reparation constituted an obstacle to effective access to justice in order to assert their right to reparations. 89. This Court considers that the foregoing considerations are reasonable. Insofar as the facts that gave rise to the civil actions for damages for acts characterized as crimes against humanity,66 such actions should not be subject to the statute of limitations. 90. The Court emphasizes that, as acknowledged by the State, the wrongful act that gave rise to its international responsibility resulted from the rejection, by the domestic courts, of civil actions brought by the victims seeking reparations for the harm caused by acts classified as crimes against humanity, based on the application of the statute of limitations, alleged as an exception by the State Defense Council on behalf of the Chilean Treasury. This criterion prevented the courts from analyzing the merits of the case in order to determine compensation for the moral damage caused to the victims, thus restricting their possibility of obtaining fair compensation. In other words, there is no doubt that in this case the violations of rights recognized in the Convention were produced by a series of decisions taken by the State’s judicial bodies, which prevented the victims from gaining effective access to justice to claim their right to obtain compensation. 91. However, the nature of those facts has led the State, based on the change in the jurisprudence of its highest judicial authority, to acknowledge before this Court that the statute of limitations is not applicable to civil actions that seek redress for damages caused by these types of acts (supra para. 15). 92. Indeed, the State shares the view that claims for reparation for gross violations of human rights are not subject to statutes of limitation and that the State cannot excuse itself on the grounds of the mere passage of time (the basis for the statute of limitations) for not complying with its international obligations to investigate, punish and make reparation for the serious human rights violations that occurred between 1973 and 1990, which includes the compensation aspect. In this sense, it pointed out that national jurisprudence has gradually incorporated international human rights law into the domestic legal system, so that subsequent legal amendments and the inclusion of international treaties in its rulings have permeated the case law of the country’s highest court, which has recognized the admissibility of civil legal actions of the type mentioned. Part of this transition is explained by the inclusion, in the second paragraph of article 5 of the Chilean Constitution, of a provision that expressly incorporates into the legal system the international human rights treaties ratified by Chile.67 This change has enabled the courts of justice to consistently apply these norms. 93. Thus, in reviewing the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court since 2015, the State affirmed that it has overcome the dichotomy between domestic law and international law, coherently In the Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile, this Court indicated 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 rule of ius cogens, and the punishment of such crimes is obligatory pursuant to the general principles of international law. Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para.99. 66 Thus, the article states: “the exercise of sovereignty recognizes as a limitation the respect for the essential rights that emanate from human nature. It is the duty of the organs of the State to respect and promote such rights, which are guaranteed by this Constitution, as well as by the international treaties ratified by Chile and which are in force.” 67