13 c. Gabriel Mazzarovich, Uruguayan journalist, who testified about: i) aspects regarding the structure of repression that prevailed in Uruguay at the time the events in the complaint occurred; ii) the human rights violations that took place in said context; and, iii) the alleged concealment of information regarding the facts of this case and the human rights violations which offered during the de facto government, in particular, on the investigation of those facts, and d. Roger Rodriguez, Uruguayan journalist, who testified about: i) aspects of the structure of repression that prevailed in Uruguay at the time the events in the complaint occurred; ii) the human rights violations that occurred in said context; and, iii) the alleged concealment of information regarding the facts of this case and the human rights violations which offered during the de facto government, in particular, on the investigation of those facts. 35. Moreover, the Court heard, in the public hearing, the declarations of the following victims, witnesses,18 and experts:19 a) Juan Gelman, alleged victim, who testified about: i) the measures taken to locate his granddaughter and know the truth regarding that which occurred to María Claudia García de Gelman; ii) the reunion between him and his granddaughter María Macarena Gelman García; iii) the complaints filed and the response from Uruguayan justice as well as other procedures carried out in the search for justice; and, iv) “the consequences which followed for him and his family after the filing of the complaint and his expectations in regard to the case before the InterAmerican Court”; b) María Macarena Gelman García Iruretagoyena, alleged victim, who testified about: i) the impact on the various aspects of her life caused by the circumstances of her birth, the alleged suppression of her true identity, the encounter with her grandfather and other relationships regarding her biological family, as well as the lack of knowledge, to date, of her mother’s whereabouts; ii) the procedures taken before the justice system to know the truth about what occurred; and, iii) the obstacles set in place by public authorities in the search for and identification of the bodily remains of her mother and in the pursuit of justice in the case; c) Gerardo Caetano, historian, who provided technical information on: i) the existence and access to information held by the State in relation to this case, as well as information on the period of dictatorship in Uruguay; ii) the barriers faced in the access to information concerning said period in history and the facts related to the serious human rights violations committed in the context of a de facto government, in particular, those violations directly related to the present case; iii) technical specifications concerning the filing and classification of documents, particularly aspects of information concerning the Operation Condor; iv) the participation of Uruguayan authorities in Operation Condor and the repressive coordination between Argentina and Uruguay; and v) the difficulties still encountered in relation to the establishment of the truth and the construction of a collective memory for the Uruguayan people regarding the serious violations committed during the de facto government. d) Mirtha Guianze, Attorney of the Public Prosecutor's Office for the Defense of Uruguay, who provided information on: i) the effects of the Expiry Law in relation with the investigations of serious human rights violations that occurred during the Uruguayan dictatorship; ii) the additional constraints faced by the justice system in the handling of cases involving serious human rights violations committed during the de facto government; and, iii) the nature of the participation of victims in Uruguayan criminal proceedings; And,                                                          18 Pursuant to that ordered in the Order of the President, witness Mr. Eduardo Galeano, offered by the representatives, was admitted. Notwithstanding, on September 15, 2010, the representatives requested the replacement of witness Eduardo Galeano with witness Mrs. Sara Méndez in order to appear before the Court, because Mr. Eduardo Galeano could not make a declaration for “personal reasons of force majeur.” Given the foregoing, the President issued the Order of September 23, 2010, admitting the replacement of the witness that had been requested by the representatives and ordered the testimonial declaration be provided by Sara Méndez in the public hearing to be held in the present case. 19 Cf. Resolución de convocatoria dictada por la Presidencia de la Corte el 10 de septiembre de 2010, punto resolutivo sexto, and Resolución de sustitución de testigo dictada por la Presidencia de la Corte el 23 de septiembre de 2010, punto resolutivo primero.