original judgment with an order of ("Let it be done") in June 2003 and directed that the file be closed, terminating proceedings in the case. 9. Mrs. Barraza received a survivor's (widow’s) pension and education and health benefits for specified beneficiaries (her children) to a specified age limit under Law 19.123. The constitutional governments granted these benefits to the relatives of victims, claim the petitioners, but such pensions and subsistence allowances must not be confused with real measures of reparation. 10. The petitioner complains that the rulings on both the appeal and the writ of cassation based rejection of the claims on the rules of civil law, which are intended to govern relationships between private individuals, applying them to a dispute under public law regulated by the Constitution and by international human rights treaties, and that such reasoning is "extraordinarily erroneous, prejudicial to the interest of the victims, their relatives, and a violation of the international law of human rights". By applying these provisions that deny the right to reparations, the courts are thereby placing the State of Chile in a flagrant violation of the American Convention, Article 2 of which requires States to adapt their internal legislation to the provisions of the Convention, something that has not occurred in this case. The petitioner consequently requested the Commission to accept the complaint and to declare that the judgments of the Chilean courts, in applying the civil law statutes of limitations to an issue involving violations of human rights and thereby preventing just reparations for the relatives of the victims, violated the commitments assumed by the Chilean State when it ratified the American Convention, in particular the rights enshrined in Articles 1(1), 2, 8 and 25 of that treaty. B. Position of the State 11. In its response, the State noted that it was providing information on a complaint relating to events that occurred during the military régime that held power in Chile between September 1973 and March 1990. 12. The State observed that the reestablishment of democratic government marked the beginning of a lengthy and arduous process of updating and adapting its conduct and its internal rules to bring them into accord with international human rights treaties. The most important fact in this connection was approval of the reform to Article 5 of the Constitution, which provided for general recognition of international treaties approved in this area. There was unanimous political agreement