44. Furthermore, on June 30, 2011, the Executive Branch had issued Decree 323/2011 that repealed “for reasons of legitimacy, the administrative acts and messages issued by the Executive Branch, in application of Article 3 [of the Expiry Law], considering that the facts denounced were covered by the provisions of Article 1 of the abovementioned law […].”33 45. Then, on February 22, 2013, the Supreme Court declared Articles 2 and 3 of Law 18,831 of 2011 unconstitutional in a specific case.34 46. According to the Report on the Merits, the Supreme Court, in 2017 and 2018, declared unconstitutional the statutory limitations of crimes against humanity committed during the dictatorship with a similar rationale to that in its decision in 2013.35 47. Law 19,550, enacted October 25, 2017, authorized the Office of the Prosecutor General to change the National Office of the Prosecutor into that of the Office of the Special Prosecutor for Crimes against Humanity (hereinafter “Office of the Special Prosecutor” or, with reference to the person, “Special Prosecutor”).36 The representative informed that the Office was established on February 22, 2018. 48. On May 30, 2019, the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal in cassation with respect to an “especially aggravated murder […] committed during the civil-military dictatorship” because it was not proper to calculate the time of prescription from the time of the de facto regime to the enactment of the Expiry Law. It was not that the Supreme Court considered that the statutory limitations did not apply to the crime, but rather that it understood that that period should not be taken into account with respect to prescription because during that time it was not possible to take the respective legal actions.37 As the Inter-American Court stated in November 2020, “with few exceptions” that occurred between 2014 and 2017 “the Supreme Court has maintained the interpretation found in its decision of February 2013 regarding the unconstitutionality of Articles 2 and 3 of Law 18,831, which refers to the non-applicability of statutory limitations and the nature of crimes against humanity of the violations that occurred during the dictatorship.”38 Cf. Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Monitoring compliance of judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of March 20, 2013, considering paragraphs 28 and 43. 33 Cf. Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Monitoring compliance of judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of March 20, 2013, considering paragraph 47. 34 The Inter-American Commission, in its Merits Report, cited the following: “Ladiaria.com.uy, New judgment of the SCJ declared unconstitutional the imprescriptibility of crimes against humanity in the disappearance of Eduardo Pérez, February 9, 2018; Cf. Supreme Court. Judgment 680/2017 of September 25, 2017.” The Inter-American Court issued similar statements (infra para. 48). 35 Cf. Draft and explanation of the rationale of Law 19,550 (evidence file, annex XXV to the answering brief, fs. 3775 to 3793). 36 The Commission took note in a press release that, on May 30, 2019 the Supreme Court unanimously rejected an appeal in cassation filed by the defense in a case of “homicide in the first degree.” The Supreme Court based its decision on the fact that “the period of the de facto regime cannot be counted in calculating the period of prescription of a criminal action, since during that time it was not possible to conduct the relevant investigations” (Press release of July 24, 2019, IACHR takes note of the judicial decision in Uruguay that limits the application of prescription in crimes committed during the civil-military dictatorship). 37 38 Cf. Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Monitoring compliance of judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of November 19, 2020, considering paragraph 30. 15