well as in the “efforts of the Office of the Special Prosecutor,”159 but that “almost 50 years after the denounced acts,” the next of kin of the victims “have not received satisfactory answers.” 132. The representative noted that nobody has been prosecuted nor accused of the actions that ended in the deaths of the three women and that the actions undertaken had not been done “with a perspective of gender.” It added that it had not received information on the whereabouts or the remains of Mr. González González and Mr. Tassino and that, recently in March 2021, “the principal suspect was prosecuted” for the disappearance of the latter. It also affirmed that “the judiciary had not processed the cases with due diligence” despite their “special urgency,” but rather had acted “as if they were common cases.” It also pointed out that “delaying strategies” were employed by those being tried.160 133. It concluded, citing Articles 8 and 13 of the American Convention, that the right to “access to justice” and the “right to the truth” of the next of kin of the direct victims were violated. Referring to the actions on the forced disappearances of Mr. González González and Mr. Tassino Asteazú, it claimed that the State violated Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention and Article I(b) and (d) of the IACFDP. 134. The State rejected the charge that there was a situation of impunity in this case since it alleged that it cannot be said that there had been a “failure in the totality of the investigation, persecution, arrest, prosecution and conviction of those responsible.”161 It maintained that, to the contrary, “the corresponding criminal proceedings are channeled, underway and with a recent qualitatively noted progress that makes it possible to foresee their clarification.”162 The State also expressed that “it had made efforts to investigate the whereabouts of [the disappeared victims] and although there may be different versions about it, the search continues.” It noted, in relation to the allegations on the delaying tactics of the accused, that it is not possible to ignore due process and that the domestic judicial order has the necessary “tools” to detect abuses of law (infra para. 244) It also indicated that the question of the perspective of gender in the investigations into the deaths of the three women “were not raised” in the Report on the Merits and that the witness Perciballe “made a clear reference as to why this perspective was not adopted during these investigations.” Nonetheless, it noted that that Office of the Prosecutor was not created until 2018, more than 30 years after the last “civil-military dictatorship” and that it “does not have sufficient resources to confront, in time and in form, the enormous task before it.” 159 The representative affirmed that that there were “practices” such as delays in scheduling a hearing or in resolving procedural requests. It added that there were frequently procedural strategies, dilatory “practices” of those being investigated, such as the presentation of “innumerable appeals” that “paralyzed the cases.” It argued that the dilatory strategies “of the defenses of the perpetrators had the purpose of preventing precautionary measures.” It also mentioned that “the judiciary did not use other procedural mechanisms set out in the domestic law that allow the rejection in limine of remedies on issues already raised on which there is firm jurisprudence, creating delays in the cases of months and even years.” It also affirmed that even though perpetrators had been accused, the accusations were under the Uruguayan criminal code and not under the international standards in the field,” offering “as an example” that “the accusations are for homicides instead of forced disappearances.” 160 The State recalled the ideas of impunity expressed in the judgment of the Court in the Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 173). 161 The State emphasized that “the corresponding judicial processes have included, at least in the relevant cases, requests of extradition of third countries” and pointed out that that is the case “of [E.F.], extradited from Spain and recently prosecuted in the case of Óscar Tassino”. 162 37