52 h. the State should have criminalized the act of enforced disappearance, but it did not do so until 2006. Consequently, the State violated Articles I(b), III, IV, and V of the Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons for its delay in criminalizing the act of enforced disappearance and for failing to thoroughly investigate the fate of María Claudia García. 141. The representatives alleged that: a. suggested an analysis of the elements of to establish a reasonable period of time to argue that the involvement of State officials and the impunity that has prevailed for years due to the Expiry Law in effect, as well as the military secret that continues to operate to date with a certain tolerance from the State, do not justify its failure to investigate or delay in doing so, rather, they increase the State’s responsibility; b. all the preliminary investigations regarding the disappearance of María Claudia García Iruretagoyena and Macarena Gelman García’s birth in captivity, as well as the suppression of her identity, were the result of Juan Gelman’s tireless and private efforts, who tried to investigate the facts, "unsuccessfully, for over eight years." Moreover, since the investigation was reopened in 2008, most of the evidence submitted to the court has been made available by means of the personal efforts and investigations carried out by the relatives.; c. by permitting Law No. 15.848 to remain in force and by protecting those who have direct knowledge of the facts under a “military secret” claim, as well as neglecting to investigate the facts, Uruguay violated Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention because, for years, it failed to provide access to judicial remedy for crimes against humanity; d. the State’s did not exercise due diligence on various occasions, such as: the repeated efforts by the Public Prosecutor’s Office to file the case within the scope of the Expiry Law; the judge and prosecutors’ lack of attention to Macarena Gelman’s requests in February of 2008 to the Court of First Instance on Criminal Matters of Second Round to process the pending evidence; the lack of lines of investigation into testimonial statements in other criminal courts and witnesses in the present case; and the failure to summon public and military officials who might have relevant information; e. no information has been gathered to establish the location and circumstances of the birth of María Macarena Gelman, nor has there been any investigation in relation to the medical staff that worked at the place where she was allegedly born; f. the Expiry Law grants the Executive Branch jurisdiction to decide whether a case falls within the scope of said law, and consequently, allows the Executive Branch to close a case or to archive the records, making it impossible to prosecute those responsible for committing crimes against humanity;