-7particular, by not taking the necessary steps to remedy human rights violations recognized as crimes against humanity by the State itself through the mechanism of the truth commissions. Likewise, the application of the civil statute of limitations to the legal actions filed by the alleged victims made it impossible to grant just reparations and made it difficult [for them] to make adequate use of a remedy that is suitable for redressing human rights violations. Based on the foregoing, there are sufficient grounds to consider that the State is objectively responsible for failing to comply with its duty to guarantee the rights of the victims […], by failing to restore the full right to obtain reparation; […] it also recognizes that the measures adopted in the judicial proceedings were not effective in accordance with international human rights law, a judicial practice that has been corrected in recent years with the change of criteria and jurisprudence on this matter adopted by the national courts and that is still in force today.” 16. The State “points out that its acceptance of the facts and the claims […] is made in accordance with the principle of good faith established in international law, which also takes into account the nature and seriousness of the alleged violations and the interests of justice, based on the particular circumstances of the case.” The State requested that “[its] statement be declared to be accepted.” 17. The Commission considered that the acknowledgement of responsibility made by the State is complete, inasmuch as it includes the legal consequences of the facts in the same terms established in the Merits Report; therefore it considered that the dispute on the merits has ceased, a matter that it assesses very positively. 18. The representative welcomed and appreciated the State’s acknowledgement of responsibility, highlighting this as progress in terms of the guarantee and respect for human rights. iii. Reparations 19. The State argued that, “since there is no dispute regarding the main subject matter of this international litigation, the appropriate course of action is to reestablish the rights that have been deemed to have been violated and determine the payment of compensation to the injured party.” Therefore, “prior to the declaration of the reparation measures to be adopted by [this] Court, it is important for the State to establish the following points: first, that the judicial cases referred to at the domestic level have been fully processed and the decisions handed down have the character of res judicata, which makes it legally impossible to reinstate the judicial proceedings in order to issue new judgments. Nevertheless, the State accepts that claims for reparation for gross violations of human rights are not subject to the statute of limitations; this principle is rooted in international custom, prior to the international human rights treaties signed, so that the passage of time cannot be an impediment for victims and their next of kin to obtain full reparation for the harm caused. Second, as regards the nature of the reparation measures to be adopted by the Court, and taking into account its broad jurisdiction established in Article 63(1) of the ACHR, the State is of the opinion that, since the instant case arises from the inability of a domestic court to hear the merits of an action for compensation for damages, the appropriate reparation to remedy the effects of the violation would be to determine a monetary compensation.” 20. In addition to the above, the State indicated that, since the return to democracy in 1990, it has carried out a series of transitional justice initiatives in several areas (right to truth, justice, memory and due reparation for victims of human rights violations), with the conviction that such actions constitute a measure of non-repetition so that never again will the State of Chile violate human rights in a systematic, massive and institutionalized manner as occurred between 19731990. The State recalled the main milestones that summarize its institutional efforts in this regard since 1990.13 Consequently, it requested that the Court recognize the following: that it has made The State referred to public policies in response to the need to find out the truth about the human rights violations committed during the dictatorship: The National Commission for Truth and Reconciliation (CNVR, known as the "Rettig Commission"), established in April 1990. It completed its work in February 1991, recording 2,279 victims of forced disappearance and execution, out of the 3,550 reports received. - National Reparations and Reconciliation Board (CNRR) created in February 1992 to coordinate, execute and promote the recommendations proposed by 13