101. Along the same lines and with respect to torture -- which constitutes a grave violation of human rights comparable precisely because of their gravity to those that occurred in the instant case -- the Committee against Torture pointed out that: [...] States parties shall enact legislation specifically providing a victim of torture and ill-treatment with an effective remedy and the right to obtain adequate and appropriate redress, including compensation and as full rehabilitation as possible. Such legislation must allow for individuals to exercise this right and ensure their access to a judicial remedy. While collective reparation and administrative reparation programs may be acceptable as a form of redress, such programs may not render ineffective the individual right to a remedy and to obtain redress.124 102. In light of the above, it is fair to say that both organs of the Inter-American system that the avenues of administrative and judicial reparation are complementary and non-exclusive. Both may apply with the possibility discounting or offsetting in the judicial avenue what was already granted through the administrative channel. Furthermore it transpires from Articles 8.1 and 25.1 of the American Convention that victims of grave human rights violation must be able to access justice in order to request a judicial declaration of the State's responsibility; for an individual assessment to be made of the impact of the violation; or to question the adequacy of previously received reparations. By the standards described above, this right should not be curtailed by prior participation in an administrative reparations program. 103. By virtue of the foregoing considerations, the Commission establishes that the object of review in the instance case is limited to determination of whether the application of the statute of limitations (prescription) to the judicial proceedings for reparation constitutes a violation of the American Convention, in particular the right to access justice with guarantees of due process to obtain reparation for grave violations of human rights which, in addition, in the instant case, constituted crimes against humanity. 104. The Commission will conduct that analysis in the following order: i) General considerations on access to justice and the duty to adopt domestic legal provisions; ii) Inter-American standards with respect to prescription in criminal matters involving certain violations of human rights; iii) Considerations regarding the prescription of judicial actions brought to obtain reparation for certain human rights violations; and iv) Analysis of the instant case. 2. General considerations General considerations on access to justice and the duty to adopt domestic legal provisions 105. On the right to judicial protection, the Court has found that the States Parties have an obligation to provide effective judicial remedies to persons who claim to be victims of human rights violations (Article 25), remedies that must be substantiated in accordance with the rules of due process of law (Article 8(1)), all in keeping with the general obligation of such States to guarantee the free and full exercise of the rights recognized by the Convention (Article 1(1)). 125 The Commission has further established that Article 25 of the American Convention relates directly to Article 8.1, which establishes the right of every person to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by an independent and impartial tribunal 126 and [… continuation] ones.pdf. [English taken from: http://www.cidh.org/pdf%20files/Lineamientos%20Reparacion%20Administrativa%2014%20mar%202008%20ENG%20final.pdf 124 Committee against Torture. General Comment Nº 3 (2012). par. 20. 125 Cf. I/A Court H.R., Case of Torres Millacura et al. v. Argentina. Judgment of August 26, 2011. Series C No. 229, par. 113. 126 IACHR, Report No. 26/09, Case 12.440, Wallace de Almeida, Brazil, March 20, 2009, par. 119. 20