4. On the kidnapping and appropriation of children in the context of “Operation Condor” 45. The clandestine repressive operations carried out in the context of “Operation Condor” often included the kidnapping and appropriation of children after their parents were disappeared or executed. With respect to the practice carried out in Argentina during the dictatorship, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights established the following28: Argentine jurisprudence has signaled in a number of orders that, "in the self-denominated period of National Reorganization, minors [of age] were abducted from the custody of their parents[, and this practice constituted] a public and evident act." The pregnant women detained in this context of counterinsurgency were left alive until they had given birth, to then abduct their children, while, in many cases, the children were handed over to families of military and police officers, after their parents were disappeared or executed. Generally, the [policy] of “abduction of minors” took place in the following stages: (a) the children were abducted "from their parents when they could be suspected of having ties to subversive or dissident politicians of the de facto regime, pursuant to the intelligence reports, or were abducted during the clandestine detention of their mother," (b) later they were taken to "places situated within the grounds of the armed force, or under their control," (c) the "abducted minors … were given to members of the armed or security forces, or to third parties, with the intention that they remain hidden from their legitimate guardians," (d) "in the framework of the ordered abductions, and with the intention of hindering the reestablishment of the family bond, the civil status of the children was suppressed, registering them as children of those who had them or were hiding them," and (e) "false information was stated in the documents and birth certificates of the minors [of age] to accredit their identities." As of the results achieved by the illegal kidnapping and abductions, these could correspond (a) to a form of trafficking for the irregular adoption of children, (b) to a form of punishment for their parents or grandparents due to an ideology that opposed the authoritarian regime or, (c) a deeper, ideological motivation, in relation to a willingness to forcefully transfer the children of members of opposition groups, in that way [keeping] the families of the disappeared persons [from] develop[ing] "potentially subversive elements." B. Relevant legal framework 46. Law 23,492, called the “Full Stop” (“Punto Final”) Law, promulgated on December 24, 1986, established as follows at the pertinent parts: Article 1. [The time period for bringing] Criminal action with regard to any person for their alleged involvement in any capacity in the offences referred to in Art. 10 of Law 23,049, who is not a fugitive, has not been declared to have absconded and who has not been summoned to make a statement in answer to charges by a competent court, shall expire within sixty days from the date of enactment of this law. The same conditions apply to criminal action brought against any person who may have committed offences connected with the use of violent forms of political action prior to 10 December 1983. … Article 5. This law does not extinguish the criminal actions in the cases of the crimes of falsification of civil status and of kidnapping and hiding of minors. Article 6. The extinction provided for in Article 1 does not include civil actions. 47. Law 23,521, called “Due Obedience,” promulgated on June 8, 1987, established as follows at the relevant parts: Article 1. Unless evidence has been admitted to the contrary, it is presumed that those who at the time the act was committed held the position of commanding officers, subordinate officers, noncommissioned 28 I/A Court HR. Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and Reparations. Judgment of February 24, 2011. Series C No. 221, paras. 61-63.