-32rights in this case does not originate in specific provisions of Chilean domestic law, but rather in the interpretation of that law by the courts.” 131. As stated previously (supra para. 101), the jurisprudence of Chile’s Supreme Court in recent years has shifted markedly toward a consistent and proper interpretation of its duty to exercise an effective control of conventionality. 132. According to the State, in Chile, court rulings have inter partes and not erga omnes effects, since they are not subject to a “stare decisis” type system where a judicial decision constitutes a formal and general source of law. For its part, the representative has reported that first instance or appellate courts continue to uphold interpretations that are inconsistent with the above criterion and that the State Defense Council continues to file objections citing the statute of limitations (supra para. 22). Furthermore, as noted by the Commission, the uniformity of the Supreme Court’s criterion may depend on its administrative decision to concentrate the hearing of claims for reparation in its Second Chamber. In this regard, the Court is aware that the jurisprudence may change in the future. 133. At the same time, if the acknowledged international wrongful act originated in incorrect judicial interpretations of the civil statute of limitations and not in the statute itself, a substantial change in the jurisprudence of the highest judicial authority of the State - which ultimately controls the constitutionality and conventionality of the norms and interpretations of the other judicial bodies - provides sufficient legal certainty with respect to legal situations such as those that have arisen in this case and constitutes, effectively, a guarantee of non-repetition.90 The State has recognized before this international Court that a different interpretation of the statute of limitations in civil actions for reparations in cases of crimes against humanity constitutes a violation of rights recognized in the Convention. The necessary consequence of the State’s position is that current or future judicial interpretations inconsistent with this criterion would be contrary to the Convention and, therefore, would entail the State’s responsibility. 134. Therefore, this Court assumes that, in view of the good faith shown by the State in fulfilling its obligations, the aforementioned line of jurisprudence will be maintained in subsequent actions to be decided by the Supreme Court, in order to guarantee that the circumstances of the present case will not be repeated. This consideration does not prevent this Court from ruling in the future if another contentious case is submitted to it regarding similar facts .91 135. Without prejudice to the foregoing, it is also necessary to recall that the obligation to exercise “conventionality control” between domestic norms or State acts and the American Convention is incumbent upon all judges and bodies involved in the administration of justice, at all levels, and must be carried out ex officio within the framework of their respective competencies and the corresponding procedural regulations.92 Consequently, it is undoubtedly also incumbent upon all judicial authorities, at all levels - and not only the Supreme Court- to maintain consistency of criteria with respect to an issue which, in view of the aforementioned change in jurisprudence, the acknowledgement of responsibility made by the State and the evolution of Chilean public policies on justice, truth and reparations for victims of serious human rights violations, has now been resolved. Cf., See also, Case of Maldonado Vargas et al. v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Order of August 30, 2007, monitoring compliance with judgment, Merits, reparations and costs issued by the Court on September 2, 2015, para. 41. Available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/maldonado_30_08_17.pdf 90 Cf., Also see, Case of Maldonado Vargas et al. v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Order of August 30, 2007, monitoring compliance with judgment, Merits, reparations and costs issued by the Court on September 2, 2015, paras. 41 and 42. Available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/maldonado_30_08_17.pdf 91 Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 124; and Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.) v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 158, para. 128. See also Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and reparations. Judgment of February 24, 2011. Series C No. 221, para. 193; and Case of San Miguel Sosa et al. v. Venezuela, para. 191. 92