185. That is, in the above-mentioned case, the extraordinary remedy was the only one available to challenge the conviction, as a result of which the limitation referred to regarding accessibility to the remedy of complaint was analyzed in light of the requirements of Article 8.2 h) of the Convention, among which there is the element of accessibility to the remedy. It must also be pointed out that Article 8.2 of the Convention is exclusively applicable to criminal proceedings and, by virtue of case law extension, to proceedings of a punitive nature. 186. In the instant case, however, it involves a civil lawsuit for damages where there was a judgment from the courts of first instance and second instance. Therefore, the Commission does not consider that the conclusion of the Inter-American Court regarding Article 280 of the CPCCN should be applied by analogy in a case of the present nature. G. Rights to a fair trial and judicial protection regarding reparations for grave human rights violations (Articles 8.1 and 25.1 of the Convention, in connection with its Articles 1.1 and 2) 1. General considerations on the absence of statute of limitations for civil proceedings relative to grave human rights violations 187. First of all, the Commission wishes to stress that Article 2 of the American Convention entails the adoption of measures along two main lines, namely: i) the annulment of norms and practices of any kind whatsoever that might imply the violation of the guarantees protected by the Convention, or that fail to recognize or else obstruct the rights recognized therein; and ii) the passing of laws and the development of practices conducive to effective observance of such guarantees. The first set of obligations is not fulfilled as long as the standard or practice violating the Convention is maintained in the legal system and, therefore, it is fulfilled when the standards or practices having such effects are amended, repealed, or somehow nullified or reformed, as the case may be.174 188. The Commission has considered that the application of the statute of limitations to civil lawsuits arising from crimes against humanity constitutes a disproportionate constraint on the possibility of obtaining reparations. This is because, although the principle of legal security is aimed at contributing to public law and order, the right to a judicial remedy to obtain reparations for crimes against humanity does not undermine this principle, rather it strengthens it and contributes to its optimization. In addition, reparations for crimes against humanity, because of the gravity of said crimes and their impact on society, beyond individuals, must be given greater weight compared to the weight given to legal security.175 189. The reasons for the absence of a treaty-based approach to enforcing the statute of limitations for a criminal proceeding in this kind of case is related to the fundamental nature of clarifying the facts and securing justice for the victims. Because of that, the Commission has contended that there are no reasons for applying a different standard to an aspect that is equally fundamental such as reparations in these cases, because of which judicial proceedings seeking reparations for harm caused as a result of grave human rights violations should not be subject to any statute of limitations. 176 The Inter-American Court has issued the same ruling when considering that “to the extent that the facts gave rise to civil lawsuits for reparations for damages that have qualified as crimes against humanity, said proceedings should not be the subject of any statute of limitations.”177 2. Analysis of the case 190. According to proven facts, on June 9, 1996, the Larrabeiti Yáñez siblings filed a civil lawsuit against the national state for harm caused to them and their biological mother and father. On October 15, 2002, the Federal Court of First Instance for Administrative Disputes convicted the national state to payment of US$600,000 for IACHR. Report No. 52/16. Case 12.521. Merits. María Laura Órdenes Guerra et al. Chile. November 30, 2016, para. 109. IACHR. Report No. 52/16. Case 12.521. Merits. María Laura Órdenes Guerra et al. Chile. November 30, 2016, paras. 130 and 131. 176 IACHR. Report No. 52/16. Case 12.521. Merits. María Laura Órdenes Guerra et al. Chile. November 30, 2016, para. 132. 177 I/A Court H.R. Case of Órdenes Guerra et al. v. Chile. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2018. Series C No. 372, para. 89. 174 175