57 Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the law,162 as well as arguments presented by judges ex oficio who heard the complaints. 146. In 1988, the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the Law’s constitutionality by a 3 to 2 majority vote, which, in accordance with Uruguayan constitutional law, only had binding effects in the specific case. The majority found that despite the omission of the term “amnesty” in the text, the legislative intent was to confer an “authentic amnesty” on the security forces. 163 147. In April 16, 1989, a group of citizens and relatives of detainees and disappeared persons, known as the National Commission Pro Referendum against the Expiry Law [Comisión Nacional pro Referéndum contra la Ley de Caducidad de la Pretensión Punitiva del Estado], promoted and obtained the signatures of more than 25% of the votes (approximately 630,000), based upon which a motion for referendum against the Expiry Law was filed. The motion was rejected by the Uruguayan electorate, since only 42.4% voted in favor of the referendum and the rest opposed it. 164 148. On October 19, 2009, the Supreme Court of Uruguay rendered Judgment No. 365 in the case of “Sabalsagaray Curuchet Blanca Stela,” where it declared the unconstitutionality of Articles 1, 3, and 4 of the Law and resolved the inapplicability in the specific case at hand (infra para. 239).165 149. On October 25, 2009, the Expiry Law was submitted to a referendum. The referendum – held alongside the presidential election and through a “popular initiative,” which required the prior support of over two hundred fifty thousand (250,000) signatures – called for a constitutional amendment that would nullify the Expiry Law and nullify Articles 1, 2, 3, and 4 thereof. The proposed amendment garnered only 47.7% of the votes, and thus, it was rejected.166                                                          162 Cf. Report of Americas Watch, “Challenging Impunity: The The Expir Law and the Referendum Campaign in Uruguay”, March 12, 1989, evidence, folios 1789 and 1790. 163 Cf. Supreme Court of Justice of Uruguay, captioned orders “Detta,Josefina; Menotti, Noris; Martínez, Federico; Musso Osiris; Burgell, Jorge s/unconstitutionality of the Law 15.848. Arts.1, 2, 3 and 4”, Judgment No. 112/87, resoluiton of May 2, 1988, evidence, folios 2256 to 2318. Cf. see also, Supreme Court of Uruguay, captioned orders “Macchi Torres, Jessi. Homicide. Unconstituitonality ex oficio Law Nº 15.848, arts. 1º and 3º”, Judgment No. 232/1988, and captioned orders “Whitelaw Agustoni, Agustín Germán; Barredo Longo, Fernando José. Complaint. Unconstitutionality,” Judgment Nº 224/1988, both cited in the Case of Sabalsagaray Curutchet, infra note 163, Supreme Court of Justice of Uruguay. Case of “Sabalsagaray Curutchet Blanca Stela –Complaint of the Exception of Unconstitutionality,” Judgment No. 365, of October 19, 2009, evidence, folios 2325 to 2379 folios 1479 and 1480. 164 Cf. Electoral Court, Testimony regarding the result of the referendum of 1989, Act No. 6336, of June 22, 1989, approved on August 23, of this year, evidence, folios 3463 to 3468 (percentage calculated by the Secretariat based on the information presented by the parties), and Peace Service and JusticiaUruguay, Human Rights in Uruguay. Report 2009, Montevideo, Uruguay, 2009, evidence, folio 3175. 165 Cf. Supreme Court of Justice of Uruguay. Case of “Sabalsagaray Curutchet Blanca Stela – Complaint of the Exception of Unconstitutionality”, infra note 163, Judgment No. 365, of October 19, 2009, evidence, folios 2325 to 2379. 166 Cf. Electoral Court, Testimony of the outcome of the plebiscite of October 25, 2009, evidence, folios 3469 a 3471. The support to the initiative was materialized thru the introduction of the voting envelope for the national presidential, vice presidential and legislative member’s elections, which was a pink sheet, containing only one option for “YES”, In order to approved the proposal, more than half of the votes were needed. The proposal reached 47,7% of the votes that were casted and 43.15 % of the valid votes.