applicability of statutory limitations for […] crimes” such as those in this case. It stated that in this case “the lack of certainty on the non-applicability of statutory limitations has resulted in the filing of appeals by the persons under investigation, which have caused delays in the process.” 128. Lack of due diligence. – The Commission indicated that the State, after learning the facts, did not initiate investigations de officio. It noted that, after the appeals were paralyzed by the Expiry Law, the first efforts with respect to the extrajudicial executions were undertaken some 30 years after the incidents. In the public hearing, it affirmed that the investigation on extrajudicial executions “did not take into account a focus of gender and the duty to extend an investigation into this type of violence.”155 It also indicated that it is not apparent from the facts that the State had initiated investigations de officio of the two forced disappearances.156 In both cases, there were jurisdictional conflicts that took some two years to resolve because of the intervention of military justice. It also stated that even though the investigations of the disappearances “were reopened,” there has been no “substantive progress.” It added that the Government had failed to implement a “search plan” for the two alleged victims.157 129. Failure to observe a reasonable time. – Lastly, the Commission claimed that more than 40 years had elapsed since the events occurred and there was still no clarification. It alleged that, in view of the lack of impetus in the investigations and of the application of the Expiry Law, such a period clearly involves an infringement of a reasonable time. 130. The Commission concluded that, to the detriment of Ms. Maidanik, Ms. Reyes and Ms. Raggio, the State violated Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention, read in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, and that, to the detriment of Mr. González González and Mr. Tassino Asteazu, it failed to comply with those same norms as well as Article I(b) and (c) of the IACFDP. 131. The representative argued that, with respect to the actions of the last military dictatorship, Uruguay lives in a “situation of inadmissible structural impunity.”158 It affirmed that it accepted that there had been “some progress” in the investigations, as The Commission recalled that “Silvia Reyes […] was over six months pregnant,” that “the wounds to the bodies of the victims showed a special cruelty with multiple gunshot wounds and that at least one of them was found nude.” It considered that the extrajudicial executions of the three women were “especially bloody.” The Commission found that this does not preclude the duty to adopt a perspective of gender that assumes, as a hypothesis in the investigations, that the executions occurred without the perpetrators knowing at whom they were shooting, on whether they were women, since they had fired against anyone who was in the house, without seeing whom they were attacking. The Commission stated that “the focus of gender of an investigation does not depend on the intent of the perpetrator.” 155 The Commission concluded that the “lack of a response” was “particularly serious” in the cases of forced disappearance since in events of this nature “the State response must be prompt and effective and an immediate search must be initiated.” 156 The Commission explained that “even though the reports of the Peace Commission and the Investigative Commission indicated that the remains [of both victims] might have been buried at facilities of the Armed Forces, such as on the grounds of the infantry battalions, there is no record that the State has adopted such measures.” It added that in 2017, “the representative alleged domestically that the remains of Mr. Tassino might be in a place known as La Tablada, but no timely search was initiated at that place.” 157 In the opinion of the representative, the alleged “structural impunity” is illustrated by what occurred in the investigation into the extrajudicial executions of the “three girls of April,” especially by the order of July 14, 2021 (supra para. 72 and infra, para. 165). 158 36