the Judiciary definitively denied the judicial protection of the rights of the victims on October 19, 2005. The State, for its part, responded that it was actively investigating the disappearance of Maria Claudia Gelman and that eight officers (6 military and 2 police) were charged with participating in the operations of the so-called “Plan Condor”, of which the disappearance of Maria Claudia Gelman was one prominent victim. The State did not specifically argue failure to exhaust domestic remedies, but the Executive branch of Government indicated that it intended to do everything in its power to locate the remains of Maria Claudia Gelman and to clarify her disappearance, whereas the Judicial branch of Government, in the October 19, 2005 decision of the Court of Appeals closed off the criminal investigation by application of the Amnesty Law. 5. Having analysed the petition, the Commission concludes that it has competence to deal with it. The Commission declared that the petitioners' allegations concerning the alleged violations of Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 17, 18, 19 and 25 of the American Convention, Articles I, VI, VII, XVII, XVIII, XXV and XXVI of the American Declaration, Articles 1, 6, 8 and 11 of the Torture Convention, and Articles I, III, IV, V and XII of the Forced Disappearance Convention were admissible. The Commission further decided to notify the parties of its decision and to continue the in-depth examination of the supposed violations of the American Convention, publish this decision and include it in its Annual Report to the OAS General Assembly. II. PROCESSING BY THE COMMISSION 6. On May 8, 2006, the Commission received a petition lodged by Maria Macarena Gelman and Juan Gelman, and their representatives, Dr. José Luis González González and the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL), which it registered as number P-438/06. The Commission transmitted the pertinent portions of the petition to the State on June 22, 2006, and granted it two months in which to reply. On June 23, 2006 the State argued that it had not received the petition until Friday June 23, 2006 instead of on Thursday June 22, 2006, and that the two month period to respond should be calculated from that date. On August 21, 2006, the State requested an extension of the time in which to present its response. On August 28, 2006, the Commission granted the State an extension until September 22, 2006, in accordance with article 30(3) of its Rules of Procedure. On September 22, 2006, the State submitted its response to the petition, which was forwarded to the petitioners on September 22, 2006. By fax dated October 27, 2006, the Commission received the observations of the petitioners on the response of the State and conveyed them to the latter on November 16, 2006. On December 14, 2006, the Commission received the final observations from the State which were sent to the petitioners on January 17, 2007. No further correspondence was received from the parties. III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. The Position of the Petitioners 7. The petitioners alleged that the Uruguayan State has incurred international responsibility as a result of the forced disappearance of Maria Claudia Gelman, which began in 1976, the suppression of the identity of her daughter, Maria Macarena, followed by the absence of an effective judicial response for the protection of the rights of the victims and their relatives which caused them grave anguish and other prejudice. 8. The petitioners alleged the violation a number of articles of the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man during the period August 24, 1976 and April 19, 1985, specifically they charge that during this period the Uruguayan State violated the right to life, liberty and personal security (Article I), the right to a family and to protection thereof (Article VI), the right to protection for mothers and children (Article VII), the right to recognition of juridical personality and civil rights (Article XVII), the right to a fair trial (Article XVIII), the right of protection from arbitrary arrest (Article XXV) and the right to due process of law (Article XXVI). 2