58 150. On October 29, 2010, the Uruguayan Supreme Court of Justice issued another ruling in the case "Human Rights Organizations,"167 [Organizaciones de Derechos Humanos] wherein, through the mechanism of “anticipated order,” in which it reiterates that established in the case of Sabalsagaray (supra para. 148) on the exception of unconstitutionality of the Expiry Law, thereby conforming the arguments in the referenced judgment. B.2 Actions of the Executive Branch. 151. Between April and May of 1999, Juan Gelman and his wife requested a meeting with former-President of Uruguay, Mr. Julio María Sanguinetti. On May 7, 1999, they finally met with the Secretary of State, Dr. Elías Bluth, who listened to [Juan Gelman and his wife’s] reconstruction of the facts based on their individual investigation, and requested that Juan provide him with a written summary for the President to read of what occurred. In the days following, Dr. Elías Bluth personally contacted Juan Gelman and informed him that the President was sensitive to his plight and that he would do everything possible to ascertain the truth, without ever contacting Juan Gelman again. 168 152. In an open letter, published in October 1999, Juan Gelman denounced the former-President Julio María Sanguintti for not keeping his promise to conduct an investigation. The letter read, in part: “[...] I hope you never suffer such anguish, the burden of this dual emptiness. You are regarded as the most learned of the presidents of Latin America and surely you remember this phrase by your fellow countryman, the great poet Lautréamont: ‘Not even with the ocean can you wash a single intellectual bloodstain.’ Even more so when there is real blood in between. The layers of silence which veil the theft of babies are an intellectual stain that does not cease to encompass more, because the silence itself prolongs it. Mr. President: ‘Did you order the investigation you promised? And, if so, does a sense of humanity not inspire you to communicate the result to me? And, if you did not order it, does this sense of humanity not compel you to do so?’169 153. According to former-Senator Rafael Michelini, during a confidential meeting held in June of 2000, the former-President of the Republic, Jorge Battle Ibáñez, said that “in the case of María Claudia, they knew absolutely everything […] including who had killed her, naming [a] police officer […] as the perpetrator, except for the exact location of María Claudia’s bodily remains, though specifying that they already knew the zone and area where the remains were.” 170                                                          167 Supreme Court of Justice of Uruguay. Captioned orders “Organization of human rights – complaint – unconstitutionality exception – arts. 1°, 3°, 4° of the Law N° 15.848 – Record IUE 221986/2006”, Judgment No. 1525, of October 29, 2010, evidence, folios 5205 to 5207. 168 Cf. Declaration rendered by Juan Gelman during the public hearing, and Testimony of Mara La Madrid, supra note 118, evidence, folios 3674 and 3675. 169 Cf. Open letter of Juan Gelman to the President of the Republic, published in the newspaper La República on February 28, 2000, evidence, folios 3340 to 3342. Mr. Gelman interpreted the attitude of President Sanguinetti as a lack of political will to ascertain the facts. In this regard, Cf. Declaration rendered by Juan Gelman during the public hearing. 170 Cf. Historical Investigation on Detained and Disappeared Persons in compliance with Article 4 of the Law 15.488 de 2007, Tome II, Section 1: Uruguay, section A: Detained Disappeared Persons, personal