63 169. Juan Gelman’s attorney filed a motion seeking to have Article 3 of the Expiry Law declared unconstitutional because it violated various rights recognized in the Uruguayan Constitution. 197 The Supreme Court denied the motion in a judgment issued on November 15, 2004. 198 170. On June 10, 2005, Juan Gelman’s attorney once again sought, before the Court of Second Round in Montevideo, the reopening of the investigation based on new evidence consisting of three newspaper articles relating to the killing of María Claudia and other persons who had disappeared during the dictatorship. 199 171. The Court of Second Round again requested that the Executive Branch decide whether these acts were covered by the Expiry Law, and on June 23, 2005, President Tabaré Vásquez’s administration responded that they were not.200 172. As such, on next June 27th, the Court reopened the investigation, ordered various precautionary measures and ordered evidence. As a precautionary measure to preserve the evidence, the Judge ordered, among other things, that the Executive Branch report on “any ongoing action relating to the search for bodily remains in both military and nonmilitary grounds” and on any updates thereof.201 173. In July 2005, Juan Gelman’s representative presented the Court Prosecutor and the Attorney General of the Nation a request that the acting prosecutor, Enrique Möller Méndez, be removed from the cause of action. Even before the proceedings had formally begun, Méndez had publicly stated to the press that he maintained his position and juridical interpretation and that he would once again request that the case be closed, just like he had done in July of 2003, 202 wherein Juan Gelman’s request was denied. 174. On August 8, 2005, the attorney of the Public Prosecutor’s Office again requested that the investigation be closed, because, in his view, the case fell within the scope of the Expiry Law. He further argued that the earlier decision to close the investigation was of res judicata nature, to which the Judge did not consider whether the Expiry Law applied to the crimes alleged, but rather that it established a sui generis proceeding that granted the Executive Branch the power to authorize or deny the judicial proceeding and that res judicata could not be argued because there was                                                                                                                                                                       “Article 80 (Powers of instruction). The injured party and the responsible civil third party can request at the sumarial stages of the proceeding all the useful steps to verify the crime and the identification of the perpetrators, subject to the judges decision, without appeal.” (the underlined is not original). 197 Brief of Juan Gelman, no date, requesting the Statement of unconstituitonality of Article 3° of the Expiry Law, evidence, folios 445 to 457. 198 Supreme Court of Justice of Uruguay, Judgment No. 332, of November 15, 2004, evidence, folios 460 and 471. 199 Cf. request to reopen the file of proceedings and prosecution of the presumarial instance by Juan Gelman to the Court of Second Round, Evidence, folios 476 to 483. 200 Cf. Note of the Executive Branch to the President of the Supreme Court of Justice of Uruguay, June 23, 2005, evidence, folio 499. 201 Judicial Resolution of June 27, 2005, electronic evidence, annex 2, peice 2 and 3, pages. 284 and 285. 202 Request for removal of Prosecutor presented by Juan Gelman, electronic evidence, annex 2, peice 2 and 3, pages. 319 to 324.