considerations included in the Supreme Court ruling of February 22, 2013, and the manner in which they are expressed, could imply a serious obstacle to the investigation of gross human rights violations committed, in light of the Court’s order."21 35. According to the information available, in 2017 and 2018 the Supreme Court of Justice handed down judgments declaring that the imprescriptibility of crimes against humanity committed during the dictatorship is unconstitutional, using arguments similar to those adduced in its 2013 ruling.22 In 2017, the IACHR lamented that the Supreme Court of Justice had handed down a decision of that nature and it issued a reminder that "it contravenes Uruguay's international obligations with regard to human rights and inter-American standards."23 36. In 2019, following its working visit to Uruguay on May 27 and 29, 2019, the Commission expressed its utmost concern that, despite efforts by the State, there are still judicial interpretations in criminal proceedings that deny the imprescriptibility of the grave human rights violations committed under the civil-military dictatorship. The Commission stated that those interpretations led to the perpetrators of crimes against humanity going unpunished and to the denial of justice and reparation for the victims.24 37. According to information in the public domain, in 2019 the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed appeals for annulment because it considered that it was inadmissible to take into consideration (computar) the prescription period during the period in which the Expiry Law was in effect. In 2019, the IACHR took note thorugh a press release, that on May 30 of that year, the Supreme Court of Justice had unanimously dismissed an appeal for annulment filed by the defense in the case of the "especially aggravated murder" of victim Gerardo Alter. In its substantiation of its ruling, the Court considered that "the de facto regime period cannot be taken into account when calculating the period for prescription of the criminal action, because during that time, its incumbent (su titular) was prevented from conducting the corresponding investigations." The Commission stressed that while that decision constitutes progress with respect to investigation of the facts of the case, it is vital that, in accordance with inter-American standards, judicial authorities declare that the serious human rights violations committed during the civil-military dictatorship do not prescribe.25 C. The alleged victims 38. Diana Maidanik Potasnik was 21 years old at the time and Mónica Wodzislawski and Flora Potasnik are her next-of-kin.26 39. Laura Raggio Odizzio was 19 years old at the time and her next-of-kin are her mother Marta Odizzio de Raggio and her brothers Horacio Enrique Raggio Odizzio and Daniel Raggio Odizzio.27 40. Silvia Reyes de Barrios was 21 years old at the time and over six months' pregnant.28 She was married to Washington Barrios and had a close relationship with her parents-in-law Washington Barrios and María Fernández Rodríguez, her sister-in-law Jaqueline Barrios, her sister Estela Reyes, and her parents Arturo Ricardo Reyes and Celia Sedarri29 I/A Court of H.R. Resolution by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of Gelman v. Uruguay, of March 20, 2013, Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, par. 54. 22 Ladiaria.com.uy, Nueva Sentencia de la SCJ declaró inconstitucional la imprescriptibilidad de delitos de lesa humanidad en desaparición de Eduardo Pérez, February 9, 2018; see also: Supreme Court of Justice.. .Judgment No. 680/2017 of September 25, 2017. 23 IACHR Wraps Up 165th Regular Session in Uruguay, October 27, 2017. 24 Press release, IACHR Completes Visit to Uruguay, May 31, 2019. 25 Press release, CIDH toma nota de decisión judicial en Uruguay que limita la aplicación de la prescripción en crimen cometido durante la dictadura cívico militar,, June 24, 2019. 26 Appendix 2.1. Denunciation on October 15, 1986 of the "homicide" of Laura Raggio, Silvia Reyes, and Diana Maidanik. Attached to the petitioner’s brief of August 15, 2007. 27 Appendix 2.1. Denunciation on October 15, 1986 of the "homicide" of Laura Raggio, Silvia Reyes, and Diana Maidanik. Attached to the petitioner’s brief of August 15, 2007. 28 Appendix 2.1. Denunciation on October 15, 1986 of the "homicide" of Laura Raggio, Silvia Reyes, and Diana Maidanik. Attached to the petitioner’s brief of August 15, 2007. 29 Appendix 2.1. Denunciation on October 15, 1986 of the "homicide" of Laura Raggio, Silvia Reyes, and Diana Maidanik. Attached to the petitioner’s brief of August 15, 2007. 21 7