-24the State arises immediately for the breach of an international rule, with the subsequent duty to make reparation and put an end to the consequences of the offense. Ninth: That, on the other hand, compensation for the harm caused by the crime and the action to make it effective, which is of the utmost importance when administering justice, concerns the public interest and aspects of material justice, all of which led it to accept the civil actions filed in the proceedings. The purpose of these is to obtain full reparation for the damage caused by the action of agents of the State of Chile, as required by the application in good faith of international treaties signed by our country and the interpretation of the rules of international law considered ius cogens by the international legal community. Said rules should be given preferential effect in our domestic legal system, pursuant to Article 5 of the Constitution of the Republic, over those provisions of national law that would make it possible to evade the responsibilities incurred by the Chilean State, through the criminally culpable actions of its officials, thus complying with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Tenth: That, finally, it should be taken into consideration that the system of State liability also derives from Article 6 paragraph 3 of the Constitution of the Republic and Article 3 of Law Nº 18.575, Organic Constitutional Law on General Principles for the Administration of the State, which, if the thesis of the appeal is accepted, would be inapplicable. […]70 95. In this case, the actions brought by the victims were, strictly speaking, of a civil nature and there is no evidence that they were linked or related to any criminal proceeding. Thus, in view of its acknowledgement of responsibility, the Court understands that the State’s reasons for considering that civil actions for reparations for damages caused by acts that qualify - or may qualify - as crimes against humanity, are not subject to the statute of limitations, based on the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, are also applicable to any civil action, regardless of whether it is for compensation in the context of a criminal proceeding or whether it is a claim in the civil proceeding itself. In other words, such imprescriptibility is justified by the State’s obligation to make reparation due to the nature of the facts and does not depend on the type of legal action that seeks to enforce it. 96. The Court also recalls that the Commission, in its Merits Report, pointed out that during the processing of the case before it, the defense presented by the Chilean State had focused on reporting on its administrative reparations program and the benefits received by the victims; it noted that what the petitioners wanted was not to request an abstract assessment of whether the program met the requirements of the Convention; and that they did not contest the fact that the victims had received benefits within the framework of that program. The Commission considered that the avenues of administrative and judicial reparation are complementary and not exclusive. 97. In this regard, the State pointed out that, in addition to the aforementioned change in its jurisprudence, the Supreme Court has recognized the complementary nature of the financial reparations granted under the laws enacted since the return to democracy in 1990, with the compensation obtained through the courts, indicating that the provision of pensions under Law Nº 19.123 does not prevent victims from seeking compensation through a claim for moral damages, rejecting the reasoning that considered administrative reparations to be exclusive of judicial reparations. Indeed, in the abovementioned jurisprudence, the Supreme Court reasons as follows: […] That these same considerations prevent an acceptance of the Chilean Treasury’s argument that the compensation claimed is inadmissible on the grounds that the plaintiffs obtained reparation pensions in accordance with Law N° 19.123 and its successive amendments, since this claim contradicts the provisions of the aforementioned international rules and because domestic common law is only applicable if it is not in contradiction with that precept, as it also reasoned, so that the liability of the State for this type of wrongdoing is always subject to the rules of international law, which cannot be breached based on other precepts of domestic law. The legislation invoked by the Treasury –which only establishes a system of welfare pensions – does not envisage any incompatibility with the compensation sought here, and it is not appropriate to assume that it was enacted to repair all moral damages inflicted 70 Cf. Supreme Court of Justice of Chile. Second Chamber. Judgment of April 26, 2017. Case Record No. N 11767-2017. Available at: http://basejurisprudencial.poderjudicial.cl/