-23combining both regulatory sources in light of its international human rights obligations. 68 The State affirmed that this is not the result of an isolated criterion or a fortuitous decision, but rather that it is now a robust and consolidated position that considers international obligations to be binding on the State and that its primary obligation is to make reparations. 94. The State presented an extensive study of its case law regarding this type of action, as well as a certificate from the Supreme Court Secretariat containing a list of numerous cases adjudicated between 2008 and 2017, in which the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court declared the imprescriptibility of the civil action in this type of case.69 Accordingly, the Court deems it appropriate to point out that the civil actions referred to in those cases were civil lawsuits for compensation, brought in the context of criminal proceedings; in other words, they were in some way dependent on the respective criminal actions. In this sense, the criteria of the Chilean Supreme Court of Justice to uphold such reasoning are the following: Fifth: That, beyond the reasoning of the judges ad quem, the reiterated jurisprudence of this Court specifies that, in the event of a crime against humanity – which has been declared in this case - the criminal prosecution is not subject to the statute of limitations. Thus, it is not consistent to understand that the correlative civil action for compensation is subject to the statute of limitations contemplated in domestic civil law, since this would be contrary to the express will set forth in international human rights law, which is part of the national legal system, in line with paragraph 2 of Article 5 of the Constitution, which establishes the right of victims and other legitimate parties to obtain due compensation for all the damages suffered as a result of the unlawful act, or even by the domestic law itself, which, by virtue of Law N° 19.123, explicitly recognized the undeniable existence of the damage and also granted to the relatives of those classified as disappeared detainees and those executed for political reasons, for human rights violations during the period 1973-1990, compensation of a financial or pecuniary nature. In this regard, SCS Nos. 20.288-14, of April 13, 2105; 1.424, of April 1, 2014; 22.652, of March 31, 2015, among others, have also been discussed. Therefore, any attempt to differentiate between the two actions and treat them unequally is discriminatory and does not allow the legal system to maintain the coherence and unity that are indispensable in a democratic State governed by the rule of law. Thus, seeking to use Civil Code provisions in relation to the liability arising from crimes against humanity that could be committed with the active collaboration of the State, as a common law supplementary to the entire legal system, is currently inappropriate. Seventh: That, in addition, the civil action brought here by the plaintiffs against the Treasury, seeking full reparation for the harm caused, is based on the general principles of international human rights law and its rules enshrined in international treaties ratified by Chile, which oblige the State to recognize and protect this right to full reparation, pursuant to the provisions of Articles 5, second paragraph, and 6 of the Constitution of the Republic. Articles 1(1) and 63(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights stipulate that the State’s responsibility for this type of event is subject to the provisions of international law, which cannot be disregarded under the pretext of giving precedence to other precepts of domestic law, since, if an unlawful act attributable to a State is brought to light, the international responsibility of With respect to such actions, the State pointed out that, until 2015, the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court had fluctuated between declaring the civil action for compensation time-barred in accordance with the rules established in the Civil Code, or on the contrary, affirming the non-applicability of statutes of limitations based on Articles 1(1) and 63(1) of the American Convention and the obligation to provide redress to victims of serious, massive and systematic human rights violations, which cannot be excused by domestic legislation. The differing criteria in the case law on this matter were due mainly to the way in which the Supreme Court hears judicial cases through specialized chambers. Thus, the criminal chamber heard civil actions when they had been filed jointly with the criminal action and the civil chamber heard those that were filed separately. In order to unify the jurisprudence on the matter, the Supreme Court, in an Agreed Resolution dated January 16, 2015, which distributes the matters heard by the specialized chambers, determined a change in the distribution of the cases. As a result, currently, the Supreme Court only hears these civil actions through the Second Chamber (criminal chamber), regardless of how they are filed. Since then, the Supreme Court has focused its arguments on: (a) the need for the State’s organs to comply with the State's international obligation to provide comprehensive reparation to victims of serious violations, generally dismissing arguments that tend not to grant reparation; b) has established a hierarchy of rules, under which legal norms can only be applied as long as they are not in contradiction with the principles and standards of international human rights law; and c) has held that, according to its own jurisprudence and in order to give it unity and coherence, a civil action cannot be deemed to be time-barred if the criminal action for crimes against humanity is considered not to be subject to any statute of limitations. Thus, it has determined that both spheres –criminal and civil- are different but complementary spheres of integral reparation. 68 Cf. Directorate of Studies of the Supreme Court, “Study of jurisprudence on civil actions for reparations related to crimes against humanity,” in response to a request for information from the Director of the Human Rights Program of the Under-secretariat of Foreign Relations in the context of the present case before the Inter-American Court (evidence file, ff. 2640 et seq.); and official letter Nº 048 2018 of January 30, 2018, from the Secretary of the Supreme Court to the Human Rights Director of the Ministry of Foreign Relations (evidence file, ff. 2697 to 2702) 69