39 h. in regard to Article 18 of the Convention, “[t]he appropriate of María Macarena by the security forces of Uruguay prevented her from knowing her true name and identity, given that she lived with a false name, though she was unaware that it was false"; i. concerning Article 5 of the Convention, the suffering and pain of Juan Gelman and María Macarena Gelman caused by the enforced disappearance of María Claudia García and by the non-existence of an investigation on the subject, as well as the fact that the State have not determined her destiny; and j. the State violated Article 11 of the Convention, by the breach of the right to privacy of María Macarena Gelman. 104. The representatives alleged that: a. María Macarena Gelman “[w]as registered with false facts of birth,” to which b. c. d. e. f. “the appearance of legality, created by means of the false registration of her birth, promoted that she live, grow, and develop in total ignorance of her true juridical personality,” and “as a consequence, she was prevented from exercising—including up to adulthood—the rights and obligations she was afforded as daughter of María Claudia García and Marcelo Gelman,” that corresponded to her under law; “[t]he State [...] had the obligation to provide the documents that demonstrated her existence and real identity, but the State omitted to take the necessary measures for a baby born in captivity and lacking the protection of her parents, and thereby, in a situation of extreme vulnerability in the face of the actions of State officials and third parties, to be returned to her family of origin and afforded her true juridical personality"; “in this case, the birth registration of María Macarena was [...] completely flawed,” because “[f]or all legal effects, […] she was obligated to assume a false juridical personality, illegally created, without her consent” and from there, the State failed in its obligation to reestablish, "in the civil registry, the real circumstances of the birth of María Macarena, as well as making known her true identity and recognizing her legitimate juridical personality”; “the legal effects as a consequence of the denial of her name and her identity were such that they deprived her during said time, among others, of her hereditary rights, and to hold the nationality of her parents"; at time that Uruguay recognized the jurisdiction of this Court, "Maria Macarena was still a child, and as such, the State owed her additional and complementary special protection that her status and particular circumstances required". Nevertheless, Uruguay did not take the necessary measures to protect these rights nor did it reverse "the condition of helplessness of Maria Macarena” and “to the contrary, the State guaranteed, through its silence and obstruction, that the crimes committed against Maria Macarena would be perpetuated through the course of time, impeding her right to grow and develop with her biological family”; “[i]n addition, these violations affected, in a particular manner, the rights and obligations of the grandparents and other next of kin, those of whom were denied the opportunity to form part of the life of their granddaughter, to contribute to her development, and to watch her grow";