64 no proceeding or person related therein, and this act allowed for the continuation of the investigation. 203 175. On August 11, 2005, in compliance with the precautionary measures the Judge had ordered, the former-State Secretary, Gonzalo Fernández, submitted a certified copy, in the pretrial proceedings stage, of the Report of the Investigation Committee on the Fate of 33 Citizens Detained between June 27, 1973 and March 1, 1985 [“Informe de la Comisión Investigadora sobre el Destino Final de 33 Ciudadanos Detenidos en el Período comprendido entre el 27 de junio de 1973 y el 1 de marzo de 1985”]. The President of the Republic had requested the General Military Commander to complete the report “in secrecy and in order to further ascertain the fate of those detained during the de facto regimen (June 27, 1973March 1, 1985) and to determine the whereabouts of their bodily remains, whose detention had not, to date, been recognized by the Institution.” 204 176. The report describes “Operación Zanahoria,” an operation carried out in 1984 to exhume and cremate the remains of disappeared persons who had been killed and buried on military grounds. “Operación Zanahoria” also provided for the trituration [grinding] and subsequent cremation of those bodily remains that could not be cremate, that which was not possible in all cases. Annex 1 details all the information it has on each case. In relation to María Claudia García, it provides: “22. María Claudia García Irureta de Gelman […] After giving birth in the Military Hospital, she was once again transferred to the same detention location. In December of 1976, she was separated from her daughter and transferred to the properties of the Batallón I Parac. Nº 14, where she was killed. Her remains were buried at the site and would not have been exhumed in 1984, remaining to this day in said area.” 205 177. The Public Prosecutor’s Office filed a motion to replace and appeal against the abovementioned August 2005 Court, which denied the replacement, to be revoked on October 19, 2005, by the Court of Appeals, which ordered that the case be archived. The rationale for this decision was essentially a deferral to prosecutorial discretion.206 Juan Gelman’s lawyer was personally notified of this order of the Court of Appeals on November 9, 2005. 207                                                          203 Cf. Judicial Resolution of August 16, 2005, electronic evidence, annex 2, peice 2 and 3, pages. 346 to 372. 204 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, pages. 74 to 82. 205 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. 206 Cf. The Court of Appeals ruled that the prosecution, obligated to carry out the process, did not consider the prerequisites to have been exhausted. The order only serves to facilitate the indictment by the prosecution. If the prosecutor believes that there is no basis for prosecution, the judge is bound by this decision and can not instruct alone instruct the proceeding. 207 Cf. Notification Action No. 934 of the Court of Second Round, on November 9, 2005, evidence, folio 512.