5 23. The petitioner argued that Law No. 15,848 is contrary to the American Convention and that even though it was ratified by the plebiscite, the effective observance of human rights “is not a matter for a plebiscite” (“no es plebiscitable”). He argued that independent of the interpretation that the Executive may make of it, it has discretionally reserved its power to exclude or not exclude cases from the caducity (or expiry) regime (régimen de caducidad) referred to in the law, as happened in the cases that are the subject of the petition, also violating the principle of equality before the law. 24. In addition, the petitioner argued that although the Executive branch may have authorized investigations, the Judicial branch has not issued a ruling that clarifies the official truth of the facts. In addition, it alleged that the Peace Commission did not determine responsibilities, and based its investigation on confidential sources; moreover, based on data derived from some cases, such as that of Fernando Miranda, the reliability of its conclusions has been called into question, including the truth of the so-called “Operation Carrot” (“Operación Zanahoria”). 25. The petitioner argued that it was up to the Judicial branch and not the Executive branch to investigate the facts and to guarantee the right to the truth and access to justice through adequate and effective judicial remedies, since it is in the area of the administration of justice that the effective observance of fundamental rights is defined in democratic societies. Based on the foregoing arguments, the petitioner concluded that the State has violated the rights contained in Articles 8, 13, and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to the obligation contained in Article 1(1) of said instrument, to the detriment of the alleged victims’ next-of-kin. B. The State 26. The State argued that the cases of the alleged victims were excluded from the Law on the Caducity of the Criminal Action of the State (Ley de Caducidad de la Pretensión Punitiva del Estado) (known as the “Caducity Law” or the “Expiry Law”; hereinafter “Law No. 15,848”); that it was actively investigating the disappearances of Oscar Tassino Asteazu and Luis Eduardo González González and the executions of Diana Maidanic, Laura Raggio Odizzio, and Silvia Reyes; and that most of the persons allegedly responsible for participating in cases of forced disappearances or extrajudicial executions are currently in prison. 27. It recognized that the cases reported as forced disappearances of Luis Eduardo González González and Oscar Tassino Asteazu, as well as extrajudicial executions of Diana Maidanic, Laura Raggio Odizzio, and Silvia Reyes, were unfortunate events that occurred in Uruguay during the military dictatorship of 1973 to 1985. Nonetheless, it alleged that the cases had been clarified due to the laborious investigative and humanitarian work of the Peace Commission, which was indicated by the petitioner and which demonstrated the commitment of the current administration to clarify, investigate, and search for truth and justice in each of the cases mentioned. He argued that within the framework of the investigations into persons who were detained and disappearance during the military dictatorship, several former members of the military had spoken of the so-called “Operation Carrot” (“Operación Zanahoria”) as a result of which the bony remains of several detained and disappeared persons who died – after having suffered torture during interrogations – so as to cast them into the sea. 28. The State alleged that from March 1, 2005, the Executive branch fostered an interpretation of Law 15,848 that has substantially modified its orientation and aim, on turning it into a tool for furthering the search for the truth, and on interpreting it such that judges, before submitting a case to the Executive branch for its consideration, must investigate and call witnesses, so that there be sufficient information to evaluate to determine whether the case is excluded from