This day the Supreme Court ordered the tax court to pay compensation of a total of $400,000,000 for moral damage, to the sons of Manuel González Vargas, who was arrested at his place of work, the Maestranza de San Bernardo de Ferrocarriles, and executed by members of the Army on Cerro Chena, on October 6, 1973.La Second Chamber of the high court ruled unanimously and the resolution states «that , in short, weighing on the State the obligation to repair the relatives of the victim, enshrined in international human rights law, does not become a sustainable argument for exempting him from compliance. Not only because of what has already been expressed but because this duty of the State also finds its consecration in domestic law.» The ruling further adds that «in fact, the system of State responsibility derives in addition to Article 3 of Law No. 18.575, Constitutional Organic of General Bases of State Administration, which provides that the Administration of the State is at the service of the human person, that its purpose is to promote the common good and that, one of the principles to which it must subject its action , is responsibility. Consequently, Article 4 of article 4 provides that ‘the State shall be liable for damages caused by the organs of the Administration in the exercise of its duties, without prejudice to the responsibilities which may affect the official who caused them’. Thus, it can only be concluded that the moral damage caused by the unlawful conduct of the officials or agents of the State, authors of the unjust humanity on which the present action is based, must be compensated by the State.» The legislation relied on by the Fisco – which only establishes a system of welfare pensions – does not provide for any inconsistency with the compensation pursued here; on the contrary, it expressly declares such benefits compatible in Article 24 thereto, by prescribing that ‘The repair pension shall be compatible with any other, of any character, of which it enjoys or which may correspond to the respective beneficiary. It shall also be compatible with any other social security benefits established in the laws’. Taken from another point of view, it is not appropriate to assume that that law was issued to remedy any moral damage inferred to victims of human rights attacks, since they are different forms of reparation and, that they are assumed by the State voluntarily, no matter the resignation of one of the parties or the prohibition for the judicial system to declare its source , by the means authorized by law. This has previously sustained this Court,» the document closes.