considers that the expressions contained in the fourth preambular clause were based on the underlying information contained in File No. 2951 of the CONADEP report, presented by the plaintiffs66: …RECOGNITION OF THE DETENTION BY WRITING OR OTHERWISE: The mission to Uruguay by Professor Robert Goldman of the United States, Senator Martínez Bjorkman of Spain, and Jean-Louis Weil, of France, December 12 to 18, 1977, to investigate the situation of political prisoners and persons disappeared, yielded the following result on the case of Mr. JULIEN: in an interview with Col. Silva Ledesma, President of the Supreme Military Tribunal, he confirmed Roger JULIEN was detained and indicted as of October 1976 (the date coincides with the kidnappings and disappearances of the JULIEN family and other persons) and that he was detained at the Military Establishment for Imprisonment No. 1 “Libertad.” Despite the approaches by his family members to the authorities of the prison, they always denied having detained him. The Uruguayan government committed to offering additional information about the persons disappeared in Argentina and Paraguay, which it never did. (See circular of the S.I.J.A.U., February 1, 1978)… 77. On October 28, 2003, the Larrabeiti Yáñez siblings filed an appeal alleging that File No. 2951 of the CONADEP report contains the statement by Ms. Cáceres de Julien indicating that her son died in the military operation. They also alleged that the folios of the file taken into account in the judgment are not signed and have no indication of the person who drafted them, that “the statements by Col. Silva Ledesma were a bald lie which members of the military usually turned to in order to ‘legalize’ the disappeared,” and that the foreign delegates were never given any “proof of life.”67 78. On June 22, 2004, the Second Chamber of the National Court of Appeals for Federal ContentiousAdministrative Matters upheld the judgment of first instance on the same basis used by the court below. In this respect, it established that68: 1) the decree in question was an act of the administration that was not intended to have effects on third persons, i.e. outside of the scope of its jurisdiction, but only at giving power-of-attorney to the Office of the Attorney General for the Treasury… 2) that preambular clause … cannot be interpreted in isolation from the context in which it is inserted, which implies that it should necessarily be related to the preambular clauses that precede it and those that follow it, and note that it refers to the action and documentation in the case file that has motivated it – … copy of File No. 2951 3) … the hope invoked by the plaintiffs originates from File No. 2951 [of the CONADEP report] and not decree 1025/96. 79. On August 3, 2004 the Larrabeiti Yáñez siblings filed an extraordinary appeal (recurso extraordinario) against the judgment handed down on appeal, arguing that it was arbitrary. 69 That appeal was denied on November 16, 2004 on the following basis70: … the doctrine of arbitrariness is not aimed at correcting mistaken judgments or those that may be considered such, but rather addresses only exceptional situations in which breakdowns of logical reasoning on which the judgment is based, or a manifest failure to establish the legal basis, keep the ruling appealed from being upheld as a valid judicial act (Judgments C.C. 304:267; 279; 375, among many others). The appellant does not show such an exceptional situation in the instant case, for the discrepancy with the decision is not sufficient for that purpose. Annex XX. Appellate brief of October 28, 2003 filed by the plaintiffs against the judgment of first instance in Case 24,518/98 “Larrabeiti Yáñez Anatole Alejandro and one other v. State-Interior re/Damages,” para. 3. Annex 8 of the initial petition of November 11, 2005. 67 Annex XX. Appellate brief of October 28, 2003 filed by the plaintiffs against the judgment of first instance in Case 24,518/98 “Larrabeiti Yáñez Anatole Alejandro and one other v. State-Interior re/Damages,” paras. 4 and 5. Annex 8 of the initial petition of November 11, 2005. 68 Annex XX. Judgment of the Second Chamber of the National Court of Appeals for Federal Contentious-Administrative Matters, Case 24,518/98 “Larrabeiti Yáñez Anatole Alejandro and one other v. State-Interior re/Damages” of June 22, 2004, pp. 3-4. Annex 7 of the initial petition of November 11, 2005. 69 Annex XX. Extraordinary Appeal of August 3, 2004 filed in Case No. 24,518/98 before the Second Chamber of the National Court of Appeals for Federal Contentious-Administrative Matters. Annex 9 of the initial petition of November 11, 2005. 70 Annex XX. Judgement of the Second Chamber of the National Court of Appeals for Federal Contentious-Administrative Matters, Case 24,518/98 “Larrabeiti Yáñez Anatole Alejandro and one other v. State-Interior re/Damages,” November 16, 2004. Annex 11 of the initial petition of November 11, 2005. 66