-206. Where so provided for in an applicable treaty or contained in other international legal obligations, statutes of limitations shall not apply to gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations of international humanitarian law which constitute crimes under international law. 7. Domestic statutes of limitations for other types of violations that do not constitute crimes under international law, including those time limitations applicable to civil claims and other procedures, should not be unduly restrictive.61 83. The Commission also mentioned some developments in the comparative law of certain countries. For example, in the case of Colombia, the Council of State has handed down several judgments disregarding the two-year prescription period for direct reparation claims against the State, in cases of harm caused by the commission of crimes against humanity. That conclusion was the result of an exercise to balance the legal certainty sought by statutes of limitation and the imperative to make reparation for the harm inflicted by these types of crime:62 From this point of view, the statute of limitations is institutionalized as a temporary, peremptory and preclusive concept of order, stability, general interest and legal certainty for the associates and the administration from the procedural perspective, generating certainty and materializing the reasonable and proportional exercise that every person has 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.63 84. In Argentina, Article 2561 of the Civil and Commercial Code was amended so that the provisions on prescription and “special time limits” would establish that “civil actions arising from crimes against humanity are not subject to any statute of limitations.”64 85. Similarly, as noted by the Commission and the State itself, in recent years the jurisprudence of the Chilean Supreme Court has changed substantially, since in numerous specific cases it has declared that the statute of limitations shall not apply for civil actions for compensation for damages arising from crimes against humanity, citing for this purpose arguments of international human Cf. General Assembly (AG). A/RES/60/147, March 21, 2006. Resolution that adopted the “Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law.” 61 The Colombian Council of State has drawn a distinction between expiration and prescription in the following terms: expiration refers to the extinction of the action, while prescription refers to the extinction of the right; the former must be alleged, while expiration operates ipso iure; prescription can be waived, whereas expiration cannot be waived, in any case; and while the terms of prescription can be suspended or interrupted, those of expiration cannot and while the terms of prescription may be suspended or interrupted, those of expiration are not subject to suspension, unless expressly provided for. See Council of State of Colombia, Ce SIII and 30566 of 2006. 62 Cf. Council of State. Counsel presenting the argument (Rapporteur): Jaime Orlando Santofimio Gamboa (E). Bogotá, D. C., May 2, 2016. Actor: Maria Faelly Cutiva Leyva et al. Defendant: Ministry of Defense - National Army et al. Reference: Appeal Decree Law 1437 of 2011 – Means for Oversight of Direct Reparation. 63 64 See Article 2561 of the aforementioned Civil and Commercial Code.