-30suffered the attacks, humiliation and torture to which they were subjected […] with the serious
injuries and consequences […].” This case law indicates that, when determining the existence and
scope of the moral damage claimed, given its purely subjective nature arising from “the very
affective nature of the human being,” the same rules used for the determination of pecuniary
damage (which is subject to proof and direct determination) cannot be applied. Thus, the
determination of moral damage “is entirely left to the prudent regulation of the judges, taking into
consideration aspects such as the circumstances in which it occurred and all those factors that
influenced the intensity of the pain and suffering experienced […] and it could not be otherwise
because materially it is difficult, if not impossible, to accurately measure the intensity of the
suffering caused by the death or attempted murder of a family member in such abhorrent
circumstances.”88 In other words, the national jurisprudence itself recognizes the evidentiary
difficulties involved in determining and quantifying the moral damage in this type of case.
123. With regard to the reparations or compensation that the victims have already received - or
are currently receiving - under Law Nº 19.123 or other provisions, the criterion of the Chilean
Supreme Court, in recognizing the subsidiary and non-exclusive nature of administrative
reparations vis à vis those established by the courts (supra para. 97), is that the granting of the
former does not prevent the victims from obtaining compensation through the judicial process.
124. Therefore, considering the specific circumstances of this case, and in application of the
principle of subsidiarity, without this implying a jurisprudential precedent necessarily applicable to
other cases, the Court deems it pertinent to establish the amounts of compensation in accordance
with the reasonable and prudent criteria adopted by the Chilean Supreme Court in recent years in
this type of case. Accordingly, the Court considers it appropriate to set the total amount of US$
180,000.00 (one hundred and eighty thousand United States dollars) as compensation in favor of
each of the victims. The amounts awarded to each of these persons must be paid directly to them,
within the term established for this purpose (infra para. 141).
C. Measure of satisfaction (publication and dissemination of the judgment)
125. As it has done in other cases,89 the Court orders the State to publish, within six months from
notification of this judgment, in a legible and appropriate font size: a) the official summary of this
judgment prepared by the Court, once, in the Official Gazette; b) the official summary of this
judgment prepared by the Court, once, in a national newspaper with wide circulation; and c) this
judgment in its entirety, available for at least one year, on an official website of the State, in a
manner accessible to the public and from the home page of the website. The State shall immediately
inform this Court once it has issued each of these publications, regardless of the one-year term to
submit its first report as indicated in the operative part of this judgment.
D. Other measures requested
126. The Commission recommended that the State adopt, as measures of non-repetition,
legislative, administrative and any other type of measures to adapt Chilean legislation and judicial
practices with respect to the prohibition of applying the statute of limitations to civil actions for
reparations in cases such as the present one.
For example, see the replacement judgment issued by the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile. Case Record
No. 1568-2017 dated November 16, 2017. Judgment cited in Annex 2 to the answering brief of the State. 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 Office of the Undersecretary of Foreign Relations in the context of the present
case before the Inter-American Court (evidence file, ff. 2671 and 2672).
88
Cf. Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 25, 2010. Series
C No. 212, para. 244; and Case of López Soto et al. v. Venezuela, para. 299.
89