for persons missing in connection with the illegitimate acts of the State be vested in the National Institute of Human Rights and the Ombudsperson's Office. 20. Concerning matter of law, the State denied violating judicial guarantee, judicial protection, or the duty to adopt provisions under domestic law. The State argued that the new interpretation of the Prescription Law makes it possible to achieve a more rigorous selection of cases covered by the law and that this has enhanced investigations by the Judiciary and provided victims with access to justice, thereby facilitating investigation and criminal sanctions of those responsible for committing crimes during the civil-military dictatorship. III. PROVEN FACTS A. Regarding the grave human rights violations committed during the military dictatorship 21. The Commission notes that the facts referred to in the instant case occurred in connection with the civilmilitary dictatorship in Uruguay from June 27, 1972, following a coup d’état, till February 28, 1985. As national and international organizations have pointed out, during that period State agents committed very serious human rights violations. 22. The IACHR stated that "the military government in power in Uruguay from June 1973 to March 1985 pursued a systematic policy of repression, characterized by a pattern of extrajudicial executions, forced disappearances of adults and children, torture and abduction of children, among other grave violations of human rights."3 In its 1978 country report on Uruguay, the Inter-American Commission stated that since 1973 it had received information "charging the Uruguayan authorities with responsibility for the violent death, resulting from physical abuse, of a considerable number of men and women who were being held under detention."4 For its part, the Inter-American Court established in the case of Gelman v. Uruguay that during the civil-military dictatorship, "daily forms of surveillance and control of society were implemented, and, more specifically, forms of repression against leftist political organizations" and it reported that during that period there were numerous cases of children being abducted, forced disappearances, torture, and extrajudicial executions.5 23. The peace Commission of Uruguay established by the Office of the President of the Republic and charged with analyzing information regarding forced disappearances committed during the military dictatorship submitted its final report in 2013, stating that it "has become fully convinced of the serious violations committed during the de facto regime. From torture, and illegitimate detention in clandestine centers to the most serious cases of forced disappearance, the Commission has ascertained acts by State agents who, in the course of their public duties, operated outside the law, using illegal methods of repression." 6 The report stated that "the remains of all the disappeared persons who died as of 1973 (...) were allegedly exhumed toward the end of 1984, incinerated or cremated in crudely constructed boilers or furnaces using additional fuels, and finally tossed into the River Plate at a spot close to Barrio Paso de la Arena which has been located and plotted in detail.”7. On April 10, 2003, the President of the Republic accepted "in full the conclusions of the Final Report of the Peace Commission, and assumed that they constitute the official version on the situation of persons disappeared during the de facto regime."8 24. In addition, the "Report of the Investigative Commission on the Ultimate Fate of 33 Citizens Detained between June 27, 1973 and March 1, 1985" of August 9, 2005, drawn up by the National Army's Investigative Commission on express orders from the President of the Republic, placed on record, with regard to detainees, that: IACHR, Final Written Observations, Case 12.607, Juan Gelman, María Claudia García Iruretagoyena de Gelman, and María Macarena Gelman Iruretagoyena, Uruguay, par.4 4 IACHR, Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Uruguay, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.43, Doc. 19, corr.1, January 31, 1978, [Chapter II] par. 3. 5 I/A Court HR. Case of Gelman v. Uruguay, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of February 24, 2011. Series C No. 221, par. [Tr. 46], 58, 59, 60. 6 Final Report of the Peace Commission, April 10, 2003, paras 42ff. 7 Final Report of the Peace Commission, April 10, 2003, par. 52.. 8 Decree of April 16, 2003. 3 4