62 165. The Court of Second Round did not accede to the Prosecutor’s request due to the fact that pursuant to Article 3 of Law No. 15.848, only the Executive Branch may decide to close such cases. As a result, the issue was turned over to the Executive Branch to determine whether the facts fell within the scope of the Law. 189 166. On November 28, 2003, the Executive Branch, through the Supreme Court, informed the Court of Second Round that the case fell within the scope of the Expiry Law. 190 167. On September 2, 2003, the then-presiding judge issued a precautionary measure to preserve the grounds of the Military Battalion No. 13 of the Infantry of the National Army,191 which ordered the Municipality to suspend the work that it was doing on the grounds, 192 seeking protection in international law, arguing that “even if the current investigation is closed, the relatives of the victims still have a right to know where the bodily remains are located or to at least obtain information to ascertain their fate.” However, not too long after, the same judge ordered the closure of the investigation. 168. Juan Gelman filed an administrative motion to revoke the Executive Branch’s November 2003193 decision. The motion was rejected because the decision was an act of the Government, and thus, “lacks an administrative nature” and consequently, the mentioned decision “does not admit the administrative [remedies]”194 And, so, the judge assented to the closure of the investigations by means of the decision of December 2, 2003. 195 This decision could not be challenged because Uruguayan criminal law severely limits the direct and autonomous participation of the victim in the proceeding.196                                                          189 Resolution of the Court of Second Round of October 15, 2003, evidence, folios 420 to 422. 190 Official letter of the President of the Republic on November 28, 2003, in response to the requirement of the Criminal Court of First instance of Second Round, , evidence, folios 424 to 426. 191 The military grounds belonging to the 13th and 14th Battalion were assigned as burial grounds for those detained and disappeared during the Uruguayan military dictatorship. A report from the Commander in Chief of the Uruguayan Army, Angel Bertolotti, sent to President Vazquez in 2005 made to contribute to the effort to cast a light on the fate of the bodily remains of those detained and disappeared in the period of time from June 27, 1973 to March 1, 1985, informs that burial of disappeared persons before 1976, were done in the grounds of Battalion Number 13. Cf. Historical Investigation on Detainees and Disappeared Persons in compliance with Article 4 of the Law 15.488 of 2007, supra note 23, Report of the General Commander of the Army, August 8, 2005, page 82, and Hearing on October 3, 2007, in orders “Medina, Ricardo et al.. Ficha 2-43332/2006”, evidence, annex 2, peice 4, pages. 107 to 119 192 Judicial Resolution of September 2, 2003, evidence, Annex 2, peice 2, pages. 2 to 5. 193 Brief of Juan Gelman, no date, requesting revocation of the decision of the Executive Branch ofNovember 28, 2003, Evidence, pages 424 to 436. 194 Resolution No. 82.572 of the President of the Republic, on February 2, 2005, dismissed the remedy for revocation, evidence, annex 2, peice 2 and 3, pages 543 and 544. 195 Order No. 3134 of December 2, 2003, Court of Second Round, described in the Historical Investigation on Detainees and Disappeared Persons in compliance with Article 4 of the Law 15.488 of 2007, supra note 23, Tome II, page 213, and in the Official letter 2242/2008 of the Court of Second Round that Reportd on the content of the resolution, evidence, annex 2, peice 2 and 3, page 41. 196 The Code of Criminal Procedure of Uruguay: “Article 83 (restrictive character). The injured party and the civil party responsible shall not have more intervention or powers than those established in the preceding Articles.”