4 military entered the apartment they opened fire and shot up Diana Maidanic, Laura Raggio Odizzio, and Silvia Reyes, who were sleeping. 17. The petitioner asserts that the press at the time said that on that day there was a confrontation at that property. Nonetheless, it argued that Diana Maidanic, Laura Raggio Odizzio, and Silvia Reyes were extrajudicially executed. Common arguments 18. The petitioner argued that the complaints regarding the forced disappearance of Luis Eduardo González González and Oscar Tassino Asteazu and regarding the extrajudicial execution of Diana Maidanic, Laura Raggio Odizzio, and Silvia Reyes were filed on May 20, 1985, under Law No. 15,737 called the “Amnesty Law for Persons Persecuted for Political and Trade Union Activity” (“Ley de Amnistía a los Perseguidos Políticos y Sindicales”) and of the Conclusions of November 4, 1985, of the Investigative Commission on the Disappearance of Persons and the Acts that Caused Them. 19. It alleged that the Executive branch did away with the possibility of bringing to trial those responsible for crimes against humanity by adopting Law No. 15,848, which amended Law No. 15,737. It argued that Law No. 15,848 was approved since the members of the military challenged the jurisdiction of the civilian courts, claiming that the complaints should be heard in the military courts. It argued that as the Supreme Court of Justice ruled that it was up to the civilian courts to investigate the alleged wrongful acts, the legislature approved Law No. 15,848, which authorized impunity for those alleged to bear responsibility for serious human rights violations. 20. It asserted that with the adoption of Law No. 15,848, IELSUR filed “constitutional motions in all cases lodged before the Judicial branch,” based on the principle of separation of powers, the right to due process, judicial independence, and the right to equality before the law, and noted that the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the constitutional motions brought against Articles 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Law No. 15,848 by judgment of May 2, 1988. 21. It argued that even after the IACHR issued its Report No. 29/1992, in which it found Law No. 15,848 incompatible with the American Convention and the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, the State has continued to have the institutional position of respecting the force of Law No. 15,848, on occasion excluding certain cases from the scope of application of that law, such as the case of María Claudia García de Gelman, and in other cases, allowing for investigations but reserving the possibility of ruling on the application of that law. 22. It indicated that in 2005, the next-of-kin of the alleged victims once again called for the reopening of the investigations archived under Law No. 15,848, based on compliance with Report No. 29/1992 of the IACHR and the rights of access to justice and the right to the truth. The petitioner alleged that the prosecutor found in his report that the cases of Diana Maidanic, Laura Raggio Odizzio, and Silvia Reyes, and the case of Oscar Tassino Asteazu, should be archived, given that Law 15,848 provides that the procedure of searching for the truth does not correspond to the Judicial branch but to the Executive branch. The petitioner argued that said prosecutor did not consider the resolution of December 12, 2005 of the Executive branch, which indicated that it does not have sufficient criteria to find a case to fall or not fall within Article 1 of Law 15,848. It argued that based on that report, the judge who heard the case ruled on February 16, 2007 to archive the cases without explaining the grounds for that decision. With respect to the forced disappearance of Luis Eduardo González González, the petitioner reported that the prosecutor in charge of investigating the case found in favor of reopening the case. Nonetheless, he argued that the judge, by resolution of December 19, 2006, ruled that it was up to the Executive branch to continue the investigations.