-29117. However, in the final analysis the harm caused by this lack of access to justice is that the victims have not yet received the compensation to which they would be entitled and, if the State’s argument is accepted, the necessary consequence is that they would be left without the possibility of obtaining redress, both at the domestic and the international levels. All the relatives of the victims in this case are persons who disappeared or were executed, and in some cases tortured, in acts classified as crimes against humanity, acts that have been acknowledged by the State through the Rettig Commission and before this Court. 118. The Court has reiterated the principle of subsidiarity that permeates the inter-American system of human rights, which is, as stated in the Preamble of the American Convention, “reinforcing or complementing the protection provided by the domestic law of the American States.”84 Thus, the system of protection established by the Convention does not replace the domestic jurisdiction, but rather complements it.85 119. Therefore, taking into account the State’s acknowledgement of responsibility, the time elapsed and the additional time that could be required for a judicial remedy or the initiation of new proceedings, and in order for the victims to receive prompt reparation,86 the Court considers it appropriate to order the State, in application of the principle of subsidiarity, to directly grant compensation to each of the victims in this case. 120. In this regard, the Court does not make a statement or an assessment of the facts and the harm that occurred at the time when the victim’s next of kin were executed or disappeared, but rather refers to the criteria of the relevant national case law. 121. In this context, during the processing of the case before the Commission and the Court, both the State and the representative referred to several cases in which the Second and Third (Constitutional) Chambers of Chile’s Supreme Court of Justice had accepted civil claims for reparations related to crimes against humanity and had set compensation for moral damage. The representative also cited judgments issued between 2014 and 2016, with compensation amounts ranging from 100,000,000.00 (one hundred million) to 130,000,000.00 (one hundred and thirty million) Chilean pesos for each of the family members. Furthermore, according to information provided in the case law study submitted by the State, it is clear that in a series of cases heard by the Second Chamber of Chile’s Supreme Court between 2007 and 2017, the convicted persons and/or the Chilean Treasury were ordered to pay compensation for moral damage ranging from 30,000,000.00 (thirty million) to 150,000,000.00 (one hundred and fifty million) Chilean pesos to the next of kin of disappeared or executed persons. The study also emphasizes that, in general or in numerous cases, national jurisprudence grants the same amounts of compensation to each of the relatives, regardless of their kinship with the disappeared or executed victim.87 122. In addition, according to the Supreme Court’s own jurisprudence provided by the State, in cases in which the Chilean Treasury has questioned the accreditation of the moral damages claimed, the criterion for establishing these in cases of crimes against humanity are the “ties of kinship and the personal circumstances in which each of the affected parties [i.e. their family members,] Cf. Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Merits. Judgment of December 6, 2001. Series C No. 90, para. 33, and Case of Andrade Salmón v. Bolivia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of December 1, 2016. Series C No. 330, para. 92. 84 85 Cf. Case of Duque v. Colombia, para. 128. 86 Cf., Mutatis mutandi, Case of San Miguel Sosa et al. v. Venezuela, para. 237. For example, see judgments delivered between 2007 and 2017 (Case Record Nos. 4723 – 2007, 4691 – 2007, 695 – 2008, 5847 – 2008, 5233 – 2008, 6 – 2009, 6601 – 2011, 737 – 2011, 3573 – 2012, 3841 – 2012, 2918 – 2013, 1424 – 2013, 4300 – 2014, 4240 – 2014, 22645 – 2014, 1665 – 2015, 3133 – 2015, 24290 – 2016, 34057 – 2016, 11767 – 2017, 16768 – 2017). Cf. Judgments cited in Annex 3 to the State’s answering brief, official letter Nº 048 2018 of January 30, 2018, from the Secretary of the Supreme Court to the Director of Human Rights of the Ministry of Foreign Relations (evidence file, ff. 2697 to 2702). Also, see other judgments (Case Record Nos. 2080-2008, 620322016, 28641-2016 and 28637-2016) cited by the representative of the victims in the processing of the case before the Commission (evidence file, ff. 2031 to 2034) 87