9 22. Likewise, in relation to Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, the State pointed out that “it is aware that initially the complaint filed by Juan Gelman was understood to fall within the scope of the Executive Branch of the era and under the Expiry Law; nevertheless, a criminal court reopened the case in August 2008.” Concerning the actions of the judicial bodies, the State implied that “the fall of the dictatorship meant the adoption of various measures – legislation, amnesty laws, replacement of officials who had been unfairly dismissed, reparations for victims, judicial and administrative investigations – that is, the adoption of a complex system,” adding that, in that sense, “under the constitutional system of the Republic, there exists separation of powers, by which the Executive Branch is prohibited from giving directions of any kind to a judge regarding the investigation of a case,” and that “the same applies to the other alleged violations, given that these violations occurred during the de facto government that ruled Uruguay, and following the restoration of democratic order, attempts were made to bring the State’s conduct back under the rule of law, […] whereby, with some exceptions, these violations are limited to the period in question.” The State mentioned that this “does not imply a lack of acknowledgment that María Macarena Gelman was found in 2000 and that the [location and identification] of María Claudia García’s bodily remains a pending issue for the State.” 23. The representatives argued that, according to the State’s answer, the State’s act cannot be considered an “acknowledgment” in accordance with the Court’s Rules of Procedure and jurisprudence, since it does not clearly and precisely indicate the scope of the facts and rights that it appears to be acknowledging or challenging; the only definite parameter it appears to establish is a time reference that does not fit the period of the facts at issue. Considering the aforementioned, they requested the application of Article 41(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court so as to establish the State’s acknowledgment of the facts and claims put forth in the application and the brief of pleadings and motions. Moreover, they considered relevant, as a form of acknowledgment of State responsibility, the arguments made by the Minister of Foreign Relations on October 7, 2010, before a parliamentary commission, since his opinions “are regarded as indicative of what any individual would consider to be the State’s position.” They also noted that at the Supreme Court hearing of the case of Sabalsagaray (infra para. 148), the Executive and Legislative Branches assented to the unconstitutionality exception raised by the Prosecutor’s Office, and therefore, it is their understanding that the State “has recognized the unconstitutionality and non-conformity with the Convention of the Expiry Law,” for which they requested that the principle of estoppel be applied.