63. On October 28, 2005, the next of kin of the three women presented a request to reopen the criminal investigations, which were reopened in the Eighth Criminal Court in 2006.57 64. On March 13 and 17, 2006, statements were taken from soldiers who presumably were involved in the incident or in the immediate aftermath.58 Testimony was received on March 28, 29, 30 and 31.59 Between May and December of 2006, diverse actions were taken, such as processing a request that files on the incident that were being examined by military justice60 be sent to the court hearing the case as well as “photoplanimetric” documentation of where the incident occurred.61 65. On February 16, 2007, after the Fourth National Criminal Prosecutor decided that the case could not be continued due to the Expiry Law, the judge ordered that it be filed.62 66. On June 30, 2011, the Executive Branch ordered the revocation “for reasons of legitimacy” of “all administrative acts and communications issued by the Executive Branch in application of Article 3 of Law 15,848.”63 Thus, on October 24, 2011, the Prosecutor requested the reopening of the investigations and the processing of the evidence.64 On October 26, 2011, the court, acceding to the request of the Prosecutor, ordered that the evidence be produced and that A.M. be summoned to declare.65 Request to reopen the criminal proceedings regarding the deaths of Ms. Reyes, Ms. Raggio and Ms. Maidanik (evidence file, annex 2(9) to the Merits Report, fs. 354 to 370). After the request of the family members, the Eighth Criminal Court consulted the President of the Republic on the applicability of the Law of Expiry. On December 12, 2005, the President indicated that he did not have “sufficient elements” to declare that the case fell within that law and that he was not authorized to “impede the search for the truth” (Response of the President of the Republic to the Eighth Criminal Court of December 9, 2005 (evidence file, annex 2(10) to the Merits Report, fs. 372 to 374)). 57 Cf., Statements on March 13 and 17, 2006 of J.R and J.S., on the first date, and of J.G., on the second (evidence file, files remitted by the State, fs. 5674 to 5679, 5705 to 5709 and 5710 to 5716, respectively). 58 Cf. Statements on March 28, 29, 30 and 31, 2006 of Jaqueline Barrios Fernández, on the first date, Hilda María Fernández Rodríguez, on the second, R.K. and S.Q., on the third, and H.C., on the fourth (evidence file, files remitted by the State, fs. 5719 to 5734, 5735 to 5748, 5749 to 5752, 5753 to 5756 to 5757 to 5761, respectively). 59 Cf. Communication 108 of May 8, 2006, sent by the Eighth Criminal Court to the Judge of the Tenth Criminal Court (evidence file, files remitted by the State, folio. 5765). 60 Cf. Record of the photoplanimetric documentation, remitted by the National Headquarters of the Technical Police on December 4, 2006 (evidence file, files remitted by the State, fs. 5782 to 5789). 61 Cf. Brief of the Fourth National Criminal Prosecutor to the intervening judge of February 15, 2007 and his order of the following day (evidence file, files remitted by the State, fs. 5791 to 5793). 62 Cf. Order of the President of the Republic of June 30, 2011 (evidence file, files remitted by the State, fs. 5835 to 5839). 63 Cf. Brief of the Fourth National Criminal Prosecutor of October 24, 2011, sent to the Eighth Criminal Court (evidence file, files remitted by the State, fs. 5808 to 5812). 64 Cf. Decree 1702/2011 of the Eighth Criminal Court of October 26, 2011 (evidence file, files remitted by the State, fs. 5814). On October 31, 2011, family members of Ms. Maidanik, Ms. Reyes and Ms. Raggio also requested the reopening of the investigations (cf. Communication of Flora Potasnik, Daniel Raggio Odizzio, Horacio Enrique Raggio Odizzio, and Stella Reyes of October 31, 2011, addressed to the Eighth Criminal Court (evidence file, files remitted by the State, fs. 5815 to 5817)). 65 19