From this point of view, prescription is institutionalized as a temporal, peremptory and preclusive concept of order, stability, the general interest, and legal certainty for those associated and the administration from a procedural perspective, generating certainty and triggering the reasonable and proportional exercise that every person enjoys to assert his or her rights before the judicial authorities. (...) All of which is without prejudice to the exceptions formulated in this Council's jurisprudence when it has pointed out that the facts giving rise to the means of control over direct reparation allow it to be addressed as an act against humanity (...). Thus, acts against humanity are construed as "those ominous acts that deny the existence and imperative validity of human rights in society by attacking human dignity through actions that degrade the human condition of persons, thereby affecting not just those who have suffered physically from those acts but attacking the conscience of humanity as a whole" (...). (...) Now, the importance of the notion of crimes against humanity as far as the liability of the State is concerned is that it predicates non-application of the statute of limitations in those cases involving such factors, because, consistent with the gravity and magnitude of such acts which are degrading for human dignity, there is a case for acknowledging that the passage of time does not generate negative consequences for those who (directly) were victims of such conduct and who seek a declaration of the State's liability for the unlawful harm inflicted on them, because it is evident that there the interests at stake are not merely private or subjective, but also general because they involve the whole community and humanity as a whole. Consequently, this Council considers that in cases where the elements of an act against humanity are found or give rise to the possibility that an act be treated as such, there shall be grounds for not applying prescription of the means for overseeing direct reparation, as has been shown.154 (References omitted) 124. At the same time, in the case of Argentina, the Commission notes that Article 2561 of the Civil and Commercial Code was amended to allow the provision on prescription and “special deadlines” to establish that “civil suits for crimes against humanity shall not prescribe”155. 125. In addition, in the case of the State of Chile itself there have been recent judgments which have indicated that the statute of limitations shall not apply for civil actions on account of these kinds of violations of human rights. While the Commission understands that this is not a uniform criterion within Chile, it deems it pertinent , on this matter, to cite the Supreme Court of Justice's position in judgment 23.5832014 of May 20, 2015: It reads as follows: That, in the case of crimes such as those investigated, which the international community has characterized as crimes against humanity, the civil suit brought against the Treasury is designed to 154 Council of State. Counsel presenting the argument (Rapporteur): Jaime Orlando Santofimio Gamboa (E). Bogotá, D. C., May 2, 2016. Plaintiff: MARIA FAELLY CUTIVA LEYVA ET AL. Defendant: MNISTRY OF DEFENCE - NATIONAL ARMY ET AL Reference: APPEAL DECREE LAW 1437 OF 2011 - MEANS FOR OVERSIGHT OF DIRECT REPARATION. 155 See http://universojus.com/codigo-civil-comercial-comentado/articulo-2561. 25