these important tasks. 309 F. Other measures requested 290. The Commission asked the Court to order “legislative adjustments and change in [...] national jurisprudence so that civil lawsuits relative to crimes against humanity” are not declared subject to the statute of limitations. 291. The State argued that the provisions for the statute of limitations on civil lawsuits “did not affect the right of the Larrabeiti Yáñez siblings to obtain compensation and redress,” and the request for regulatory adaptation in this regard therefore constitutes a “petition of principle or merely declaratory.” It asked the Court to "refrain from ordering what was requested." 292. The Court recalls that it declared a violation of the rights established in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, read in conjunction with the Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, as a result of the criteria applied by the Supreme Court of the Nation in the instant case in declaring the lawsuit filed by the victims seeking reparations for the facts to be subject to the statute of limitations. 293. According to the information provided, the Argentine Civil and Commercial Code—Law 26,994, in force since 2015—states in the original wording of article 2561 that “civil actions derived from crimes against humanity” are not subject to the statute of limitations. This provision is identical to the one set forth in article 2560 following amendment of the law in 2020. 310 Therefore, since 2015, the domestic legal system has prohibited the application of the statute of limitations in such cases. Despite this, the Supreme Court reiterated this standard that is in violation of the Convention when ruling on this specific case, 311 as can be noted from, among other things, the judgments of March 28, 2017, May 9, 2019, and November 12, 2020 312 (supra footnote 262). 294. Therefore, although it is not appropriate to order amendment of the law in this regard, the Court reiterates the obligations for the States Parties that derive from the American Convention and, specifically, the scope of review of compliance with human rights conventions that is the responsibility of the courts (supra para. 193). As has been indicated, the Argentine Supreme Court is familiar with the exercise of adequate and timely review of compliance with human rights conventions, which it knows how to apply based on constant jurisprudential dialogue resulting in decisions that have made valuable contributions to human rights case 1951 by the Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Status of Refugees and Stateless Persons; Human Rights Council, Report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, General comment on children and enforced disappearances, February 14, 2013, UN Doc. A/HRC/WGEID/98/1, par. 46; Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence, Pablo de Greiff, UN Doc. A/HRC/27/56, August 27, 2014, par. 30; Committee on Enforced Disappearances, Guiding principles for the search for disappeared persons, UN Doc. CED/C/7, May 8, 2019, Principles 3(4), 9(3), and 12(3); and Human Rights Council, Report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances on standards and public policies for an effective investigation of enforced disappearances, UN Doc. A/HRC/45/13Add.3, August 7, 2020, pars. 57 to 59, 88, and 89. 309 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay, supra, par. 132, and Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, supra, par. 160. 310 Both articles were amended by Law 27,586, enacted on December 15, 2020 (supra footnote 94). 311 Even, article 2537 of the Civil and Commercial Code of the Nation (also amended by Law 27,586) where it refers to the way to resolve conflicts arising from the application of rules that modify prescription deadlines expressly excludes “civil suits arising from crimes against humanity.” 312 Cf. Judgment of March 28, 2017, case No. 203/2012 (48-V)/CS1, “Villamil, Amelia Ana v/ National State regarding damages,” supra footnote 37; Judgment issued by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation on May 9, 2019, case No. CNT 9616/2008/1/RH1, “Ingegnieros, María Gimena v/ Techint Sociedad Anónima Compañía Técnica Internacional regarding accident - special law”; and Judgment issued by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation on November 12, 2020, case 5746/2007/1/RH1, “Crosatto, Hugo Ángel et al. v/ National State Ministry for Interior Affairs et al. regarding damages” (evidence file, volume XIV, evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case, folios 17759 to 17830). 73