crying. Changing her tone, because before she had been kind to me, she told me that my son had fled and when he appeared she would let me know.90. 77. She indicated that on January 11, 1976, her son had appeared as “wanted” in the press and that the photo also showed another person “looking as if he had been horribly mistreated."91 C.2.2 Investigation 78. On July 24, 1985, Amalia González denounced before the Tenth Criminal Court, the disappearance of her son, Luis Eduardo González González.92 According to the available information, his mother-in-law filed an application of habeas corpus and that they “took multiple steps to learn the whereabouts of their children,” without success. 93 79. On September 24, 1985, a conflict arose between the ordinary and the military jurisdictions.94 On February 16, 1987, the Supreme Court ordered the sending of the file of the case to the Eleventh Criminal Court.95 80. As previously indicated (supra paras. 40 and 62), on December 22, 1986, the Expiry Law was promulgated. On April 9, 1987, Mrs. González filed an action of unconstitutionality against Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the law, arguing that they violated the principle of the separation of powers, judicial independence, due process and the right to equality.96 On July 29, 1988, the Supreme Court dismissed the action.97 81. While the action of unconstitutionality was being considered, Mrs. González presented before the judge of the Tenth Criminal Court a request of personal notification of the administrative act of the Executive Branch regarding the inclusion or not of the Statement of Amalia González de González on July 29, 1985 (evidence file, annex 1(2) to the Merits Report, fs. 21 to 26). 90 91 Statement of Amalia González de González on July 29, 1985. Complaint presented by Amalia González de González regarding the disappearance of her son, Luis Eduardo González, to the Tenth Criminal Court. 92 Complaint presented by Amalia González de González regarding the disappearance of her son, Luis Eduardo González, to the Tenth Criminal Court. 93 Conflict arising from the request to decline jurisdiction made by the Third Military Court of Investigation to the judge of the Ninth Criminal Court indicating that the report of the “Investigative Commission on the Situation of the Disappeared Persons and on the Facts that Motivated that Situation” included activities of the Armed Forces that could affect legal rights protected by the Regular Military Code and by its Criminal Code, thus creating, in the opinion of the Court of Investigation, a jurisdictional conflict between the two bodies (cf. Request to decline jurisdiction from the Third Military Court to the Tenth Criminal Court with respect to the complaint presented by Mrs. González de González (evidence file, annex 1(12) to the Merits Report, fs. 66 to 74)). 94 Order of the Supreme Court to remit the files to the Tenth Criminal Court (evidence file, annex 1(23) to the Merits Report, fs. 196 to 198). 95 Action of unconstitutionality of Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Law 15,848 of 1986, presented by Mrs. González de González (evidence file, annex 1(24) to the Merits Report, fs. 199 to 205). 96 Judgment of the Supreme Court of July 29, 1988 on the action of unconstitutionality of Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Law 15,848 of 1986, filed by Mrs. González de González (evidence file, annex 1(26) to the Merits Report, fs. 225 to 232). 97 24