-28impossible to carry out or reopen the judicial proceedings to issue new judgments. However, the Commission also pointed out that, taking into account the time elapsed and the time it would take to reinstate the judicial remedy, the Court could order the State to establish a more expedited mechanism that would guarantee the victims the same reparations that they could have accessed through the judicial process, without prejudice to the possibility that the parties could agree on compensation equivalent to that which they could eventually receive in the judicial process. 113. The Court notes that the civil actions brought by the victims have resulted in decisions that are now res judicata. In this sense, it is clear that the principle of res judicata is a safeguarding principle that must be respected in a State governed by the rule of law.80 At the same time, there is no doubt that the facts that gave rise to the aforementioned civil actions constitute serious human rights violations, particularly the forced disappearances and extrajudicial executions of the victims’ family members, which are classified as crimes against humanity. In certain cases where the violation of the Convention has been caused by domestic judicial decisions, the Court has ordered, among other measures of reparation, that the State “annul” such decisions.81 However, it should be noted that in this case it has not been alleged that the domestic proceedings, which have reached final or res judicata decisions, are the product of appearance, deception or a desire to perpetuate a situation of impunity, assumptions that would allow the Court to consider the appropriateness of exceptionally ordering a State to reopen such proceedings.82 114. As noted previously, based on a change in the jurisprudence of its highest judicial authority, the nature of such acts has led the State to recognize before this Court that the statute of limitations is not applicable to civil actions seeking reparations for moral damages in these types of cases. Consistent with this doctrine, in such cases the principle of res judicata should not prevent the victims in the present case –or persons in similar situations– from finally obtaining the reparations to which they may be entitled through the courts. 115. Thus, despite its initial proposal that the appropriate reparation in this case would be for the Court to establish monetary compensation (supra para. 19), in its final arguments, the State changed the position it had held throughout the proceedings, and argued that the Court should not decide on the compensation since this would imply assessing the moral damages claimed by the victims. The Court recalls that the final written arguments are not the appropriate procedural moment to contradict or limit the effect of the acknowledgement of responsibility.83 At the same time, it is true that the representative and the Commission did not submit to the Court claims for compensation or pecuniary damages with specific amounts for moral or non-pecuniary damages that the victims would deem appropriate. 116. In the instant case, the denial of justice arose from a judicial interpretation contrary to the Convention and the consequence of this legal situation is that, to date, the victims have not been able to enforce their right to claim, and eventually receive, compensation for alleged moral damage through a judicial ruling. Thus, the restitution measure consistent with such damage could be to order the State to guarantee the victims’ access to a new, prompt and effective judicial remedy to remedy this situation or, failing that, some alternative mechanism that meets this need. Cf. Case of Acosta et al. v. Nicaragua. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 25, 2017. Series C No. 334, para. 216. 80 Cf., Mutatis mutandi, Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile, Case of Kimel v. Argentina, Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama, Case of Fontevecchia and D’Amico v. Argentina, Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, Members and Activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People) v. Chile, Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru and Case of Dominicans and Haitians. See also, mutatis mutandi, Case of Artavia Murillo et al. (In Vitro Fertilization) v. Costa Rica. 81 82 Cf., Mutatis mutandi, Case of Acosta et al. v. Nicaragua, para. 216. Cf. Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 4, 2012. Series C No. 250, para. 25; and Case of Ruano Torres et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 5, 2015. Series C No. 303, para. 24. 83