84. On October 30, 2007, the CSJN admitted the ordinary appeal filed by the national state and dismissed the one filed by the complainants rendering the judgment being challenged null and void, declaring the applicability of the statute of limitations for the action regarding both Victoria and Anatole Larrabeiti Yáñez, without detriment to the right of claiming reparations as recognized in Laws Nos. 24.411 and 25.914. The Court considered that the adoptive parents should have inferred the complaint “at least as of 1986, the year in which the final report drawn up by the National Commission on the Disappearance of Persons was published by the University Press of Buenos Aires (Editorial Universitaria), under the title “Never Again” (Nunca Más), and in whose annex appears the list of persons detained and missing, and the docket numbers pertaining to the biological parents of the stakeholders.” In the judgment, it was also established that:79 […] the argument is not admissible because the action to claim property compensation has no statute of limitations because it arises from crimes against humanity, which have no statute of limitations from the perspective of criminal punishment. That is because the former involves a matter that is available and waivable, whereas the latter, regarding the prosecution of crimes against humanity, is based on the need for crimes of this kind to never go unpunished, that is, because they go beyond the property interests of the individuals impacted. 85. According to available information, to date, the case law criterion of the CSJN is that the absence of a statute of limitations for civil lawsuits arising from crimes against humanity as set forth in Article 2561 of the new Civil and Commercial Code of the Nation, does not govern cases of forced disappearance taking place during the dictatorship, because Article 2537 of said Code indicates that the delays for the statute of limitations that were applicable when the Code came into force are governed by the previous law. The CSJN, in a judgment issued in 2018 in a case of forced disappearance, pointed out that “it would [not] be applicable to the case of the absence of statute of limitations set in Article 2561 in fine of the Civil and Commercial Code, by virtue of the provision expressly set forth in Article 2537 of the same legal corpus.” 80 In the same decision, the Court reiterated the criterion according to which, in cases of forced disappearance of persons, “the starting point for the delay of the statute of limitations can be situated—among other possibilities—on the date when, by means of a court judgment, the alleged death of the victim of the crime is determined.”81 G. Criminal proceedings 86. On December 24, 1986, Law No. 23.492, referred to as the “Full Stop,” was passed, whereas on June 8, 1987, Law No. 23.521, referred to as “Due Obedience,” was enacted. Both these laws and the pardons decreed by President Carlos Menem (No. 1002/98 and others) brought to a standstill a large number of criminal cases that had been filed after democracy was restored for the purpose of investigating the crimes committed during the dictatorship. On September 3, 2003, by means of Law No. 25.779, National Congress declared these laws null and void. On June 14, 2005, in the case of “Simón, Julio Héctor,” the CSJN declared that Laws Nos. 23.492 and 23.521 were unconstitutional and that Law No. 25.779 was valid.82 On the basis of these decisions, a large number of cases filed for grave human rights violations during the dictatorship were opened and processed.83 Among the “mega-cases” processed by Argentina’s justice sector, there is the one relative to “Automotores Orletti,” which has been divided into four sections, labeled Orletti I, II, III, and IV. 1. Case No. 1627 “Guillamondegui, Néstor Horacio and others on the unlawful and aggravated deprivation of freedom, torture, and felony murder” Rulings of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, Ledger 330, Volume 4. Anatole Alejandro Larrabeiti Yáñez et al. v. Nation of Argentina, October 30, 2007, p. 4598. Available at: https://sj.csjn.gov.ar 80 Rulings of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, Ledger 340, Volume 1. Villamil, Amelia Ana v. National State on Damages, October 30, 2007, p. 360. Available at: https://sj.csjn.gov.ar 81 Rulings of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, Ledger 340, Volume 1. Villamil, Amelia Ana v. National State on Damages, October 30, 2007, p. 363, citing the decisions in “Tarnopolsky” (Rulings: 322: 1888). Available at: https://sj.csjn.gov.ar 82 Judgment of the CSJN, June 14, 2005, on the remedy filed in case No. 17.768, “Simón, Julio Héctor et al. on the unlawful deprivation of liberty.” Available at: https://www.mpf.gov.ar/Institucional/UnidadesFE/Simon-CSJN.pdf 83 Judicial Information Center. General description of trials in Argentina. Crimes against Humanity. Available at: https://www.cij.gov.ar/lesa-humanidad.html 79