-18the four-year statute of limitations established in Article 2.332 of the Civil Code. The plaintiffs filed an appeal before the CAS, which declared it void on June 12, 2003. A.9 Situation of the next of kin of Magdalena Mercedes Navarrete Faraldo and their case against the Chilean Treasury 73. According to the report of the Rettig Commission, on November 16, 1974, Sergio Reyes Navarrete, an active member of the Movimiento de Izquierda Revolucionaria (MIR), was arrested at his home by DINA agents. From that moment on, he disappeared, with no certain evidence regarding his presence in the various detention centers. The Rettig Commission concluded that the victim was disappeared by State agents, in violation of his human rights.53 74. Under Law 19.123 of 1992, Mr. Reyes’ mother, Magdalena Mercedes Navarrete Faraldo, received a compensation award as well as a monthly pension from July 1, 1991, for the sum of 360.674 Chilean pesos. Likewise, his wife, María Elisa Zepeda Rojas, received a compensation award and has received a monthly pension corresponding to 40% of 504,945 Chilean pesos since July 1, 1991. The victim’s son received both a compensation award and a pension. There is no information as to whether Jorge Alberto, Patricio Hernán, and Víctor Eduardo Reyes Navarrete, brothers of Mr. Reyes, received reparation benefits. 75. On July 28, 2000, Mr. Reyes’ mother and three brothers filed a civil lawsuit for damages for moral prejudice caused by his detention and disappearance (Case Record No. 3118-2000). On June 19, 2002, the 17th Civil Court declared it proven that he had been arrested and disappeared by State agents, but pointed out that the term for counting the statute of limitations ran from 1974 and considered that the four-year term provided for in Article 2.332 of the Civil Code had been exceeded. The plaintiffs then appealed that ruling, which was declared void by the CAS and on June 26, 2003, an order of “Let judgment be executed” (“cúmplase”) was issued. VI MERITS RIGHTS TO JUDICIAL GUARANTEES54 AND JUDICIAL PROTECTION55 (ARTICLES 1(1), 2, 8(1) AND 25 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION) 76. In its jurisprudence, this Court has reiterated the broad content and scope of the right of access to justice, within the framework of the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection, recognized in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. 77. In particular, in cases involving serious human rights violations and blatant obstruction of justice, this Court has held that “in certain circumstances, international law considers statutes of limitations to be inadmissible and inapplicable, along with amnesty laws and exemptions from 53 Report of the Rettig Commission, Volume II, page 791. Article 8 of the Convention establishes that: “1. Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature.” 54 Article 25 of the Convention indicates: “1. Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. 2. The States Parties undertake: a) to ensure that any person claiming such remedy shall have his rights determined by the competent authority provided for by the legal system of the state; b) to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy; and c) to ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.” 55