of limitations.”” 259 The Court’s findings in that case are further reinforced in a statement by the Working Group on Enforced Disappearances, also applicable to the instant case, when it stated that, in view of the seriousness of the forced disappearance of persons, “the passing of time should not be an obstacle for the progress of civil demands.” 260 232. In 1996, the alleged victims filed a lawsuit against the State in contentiousadministrative court seeking “compensation for the harm they suffered from their kidnapping and the kidnapping and disappearance of their parents” (supra para. 112). The suit was admitted by a lower court on finding that the continuation of forced disappearance meant that the statute of limitations was not applicable. In the second instance, Victoria's claim was admitted and Anatole's was dismissed, on finding that his action had lapsed because he had "refrained from exercising it upon reaching the age of majority." 261 In response to the decision, the plaintiff and the State appealed to the Supreme Court, which, in a judgment on October 30, 2007, granted the State's appeal, “declar[ed] the action extinguished,” and rejected the suit. It found as follows: Pursuant to art. 3966 of the Civil Code, “the statute of limitations applies for minors who have legal representatives […]”, regardless of […] having demonstrated the reasons why the adoptive parents may have been temporarily prevented from bringing suit […], at least after 1986, the year in which the final report by C[ONADEP] was released, the annex to which […] makes reference to the biological parents of the plaintiffs […]. […T]he argument is not admissible because the action to claim material compensation is not subject to the statute of limitations because it arises from crimes against humanity, which cannot lapse from the perspective of criminal punishment. This is because the former involves a matter that is available and waivable, whereas the latter [...] is based on the need for crimes of this kind never to go unpunished, that is, because exceed the material interests of the individuals impacted [...]. 262 233. It should be noted that the standard maintained by the Supreme Court of the Nation is not consistent with the international standard prohibiting the application of the statute of limitations to judicial actions undertaken to secure reparation for damage arising from serious human rights violations. 263 For greater clarity, it must be pointed out that the non-applicability of the statute of limitations covers any available judicial, civil, contentious-administrative, and other actions, as well as administrative procedures 264 that are requested by the victims of Case of Órdenes Guerra et al. v. Chile. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2018. Series C No. 372, par. 89. 260 Cf. Human Rights Council, Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, UN Doc. A/HRC/22/45, January 28, 2013, par. 58. Also see Commission on Human Rights, Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, General Comment on Article 19 of the Declaration on the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance, UN Doc. E/CN. 4/1998/43, January 12, 1998, par. 55. 261 Cf. Judgment issued by Court II of the National Chamber of Appeals in Federal Administrative Litigation on November 4, 2004, which is recorded in CUDAP file: EXP-SO4:0055600/2016, Ministry of Justice and Human Rights (evidence file, volume IV, annex 6 to the answering brief, folio 2939). 262 Cf. Judgment issued by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation on October 30, 2007, found in CUDAP case file: EXP-SO4:0055600/2016, Ministry of Justice and Human Rights (evidence file, volume IV, annex 6 to the answering brief, folio 2953). According to the State, the criterion was reiterated by the Supreme Court in the following rulings: i) Judgment of March 28, 2017, case No. 203/2012 (48-V)/CS1, “Villamil, Amelia Ana v/ National State regarding damages”; ii) Judgment of May 9, 2019, case No. CNT 9616/2008/1/RH1, “Engineers, María Gimena v/ Techint Sociedad Anónima Compañía Técnica Internacional regarding accident - special law”; and iii) Judgment of November 12, 2020, case No. 5746/2007/1/RH1, “Crosatto, Hugo Ángel, et al. v/ National State Ministry for Interior Affairs et al. regarding damages.” See, also, expert opinion of María José Guembe, rendered in a public hearing before this Court. 263 Expert witness María José Guembe and expert witness Juan Ernesto Méndez agreed that prescription is not applicable to lawsuits filed by victims of serious human rights violations to claim the respective reparations. Cf. Expert opinion of María José Guembe and Juan Ernesto Méndez, rendered in a public hearing before this Court. Expert witness Juan Ernesto Méndez added that the ban on prescription for serious human rights violations applies “with equal force when it comes to reparations. Victims have the right to justice without time limits, and they also have the right to compensation for damage without such limits.” Cf. Written expert opinion rendered by Juan Ernesto Méndez (evidence file, volume XIII, written expert opinions, folios 17062). 264 Consistent with this, article 4 of Law No. 26,913, “Reparations Regime for former Political Prisoners of the Argentine Republic” (supra, par. 83), establishes that application of the regime “by contributing […] to reparation for 259 61