serious human rights violations in order to claim the corresponding reparations. 265 234. Consequently, the standard set by the Supreme Court in this specific case violated the rights of the alleged victims to judicially claim the pertinent reparations for the harm caused by the serious acts perpetrated against them and their biological parents, which violated their right to access to justice. 235. As regards the State's pleading, it should be noted that the courts hearing the lawsuit filed by the alleged victims raised no procedural concerns as to the remedies pursued to claim compensation. Therefore, the objection raised is without merit, since the judicial avenue chosen to claim reparations is appropriate and therefore the standard applied by the Supreme Court was harmful to the rights of the alleged victims, thus amounting per se to a violation generating international responsibility. 236. This Court also recalls that Article 2 of the American Convention obliges States Parties to adopt, in accordance with their constitutional processes and the provisions of the Convention, such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to those rights or freedoms protected by that instrument. This duty involves the adoption of two types of measures. The first is the elimination of norms and practices of any nature that entail a violation of the guarantees established in the American Convention, 266 either because they ignore those rights and freedoms or they impede the exercise thereof. 267 The second is the enactment of laws and the implementation of practices leading to the effective observance of such guarantees. 268 237. Therefore, the declared violation also constitutes a breach of the duty set forth for States in Article 2 of the American Convention, read in conjunction with Articles 8(1) and 25(1), insofar as the standard applied by the Supreme Court of the Nation in the specific case and reiterated in subsequent rulings (supra footnote 262), amounts to a judicial interpretation that in practice violates to the rights recognized by the American Convention. A.2.1. Conclusion 238. Based on these considerations, the Court concludes that the jurisprudential standard applied to this specific case, insofar as it denied the right of the alleged victims to obtain reparations for the serious human rights violations perpetrated against them and their biological parents, amounted to a violation of their right to access to justice. Consequently, the Argentine State is internationally responsible for the violation of Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, read in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, to the detriment of Anatole Alejandro and Claudia Victoria, who bear the surnames Larrabeiti Yáñez. B. Administrative mechanisms for providing reparations for serious human rights violations crimes against humanity is covered by imprescriptibility thereof, and there are therefore no time limits on exercising the rights granted under the regime.” 265 Cf. Commission on Human Rights, Report of the independent expert to update the Set of principles to combat impunity, Diane Orentlicher, E/CN.4/2005/102/Add.1, February 8, 2005, Principles 23: “Prescription shall not apply to crimes under international law that are by their nature imprescriptible. When it does apply, prescription shall not be effective against civil or administrative actions brought by victims seeking reparation for their injuries.” 266 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, par. 207; and Case of the Miskito Divers (Lemoth Morris et al.) v. Honduras, supra, par. 45. 267 Cf. Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago, supra, par. 113, and Case of Casa Nina v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment dated November 24, 2020. Series C No. 419, par. 100. 268 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru, supra, par. 207; and Case of the Miskito Divers (Lemoth Morris et al.) v. Honduras, supra, par. 45. 62