obtain comprehensive reparation for the damage inflicted by the acts of a State agent, consistent with the international treaties ratified by Chile and the interpretation of the provisions of domestic law, pursuant to the Political Constitution of the Republic. Indeed, this right of victims and their next of kin is founded upon general principles of international human rights law and their incorporation in international treaties ratified by Chile, which oblige the State to recognize and protect this right to comprehensive reparation, by virtue of the second paragraph of Article 6 and Article 6 of the Political Constitution. That compensation for the harm done by the crime and the action for rendering such compensation effective are of the utmost importance when it comes to administering justice, in matters of concern to the public interest and "material justice." In the case under review, given the context in which the unlawful acts were ascertained, with the intervention of State agents during a period of extreme institutional abnormality in which they represented the government of the day and in which -- at least in the case at hand -- they misused that power and representative capacity, perpetrating wrongs as grave as those examined here, the State of Chile cannot elude its legal responsibility to make reparation for that de jure debt (...). Thus, the provisions under domestic law provided for in the Civil Code on the prescription of ordinary civil suits for compensation of damages and invoked the Chilean Treasury are not relevant in the instant case as they stand in contradiction to the provisions of international human rights law, which protect the right of victims and their next of kin to receive due reparation, an international regulatory statute that Chile has recognized (…). That, in short, since the State has the obligation to make reparation to victims and their next of kin established by international human rights law, domestic law cannot be adduced as a sustainable argument to exempt it from complying with that obligation (…). That, under those circumstances, the judges involved did indeed commit an error of law when they allowed the objection that the civil suits brought against the State had prescribed: an error that substantively altered the ruling in the judgment, so that the appeal for annulment on the merits will be upheld.156 1) Analysis of the instant case 126. Taking into account the prior considerations in paragraphs 94 - 104 above regarding the limits to the object of review in this case, the Commission notes that the judicial remedy available in the Chilean legal system to accede to compensation for human rights violations is a civil action for compensation. In all the cases examined, the decisions to dismiss that were rendered final 157 applied the statute of limitations to the civil action. 127. Bearing in mind the standards described in foregoing sections, the Commission considers that there is clarity in inter-American jurisprudence that applying the statute of limitations to criminal proceedings in cases of grave human rights violations is incompatible with the American Convention. The Commission is of the view that the reason for that prohibition has to do with the fundamental need for victims of grave human rights violations to throw light on the facts and see justice done. The Commission sees no reasons to apply a different standard to an equally fundamental aspect, namely reparation in these kinds of cases. Moreover, that is consistent with the above-mentioned developments in the United Nations system 156 See Supreme Court 23583-2014. Non-prescriptibility of action for reparation brought against the Treasury for violation of human rights. May 20, 2015. Available at: http://www.i-juridica.com/2015/05/21/suprema-23583-2014-imprescriptibilidad-de-laacción-reparatoria-en-contra-del-fisco-por-violación-a-derechos-humanos/. 157 The Commission notes that the appeals for annulment filed domestically were declared void for reasons that the petitioners identified as formal. 26