of the communication whether it considers that the facts under investigation are or are not within the scope of Article 1 of the present law. If the Executive so notifies, the Judge shall order the case files to be closed and archived. If, on the other hand, the Executive does not report or states that they are not included, inquiries shall continue. […].29 41. In a 2009 case, the Supreme Court of Justice of Uruguay (hereinafter “the Supreme Court”) accepted a motion of unconstitutionality against Articles 1, 3 and 4 of the Law of Expiry and declared the expiration of criminal prosecutions, in any case, exceeds the powers of the legislators and invades the forum of a function constitutionally assigned to judges, so that, for whatever reason, the legislature could not arrogate to itself the power of deciding that the period had expired regarding prosecution for certain crimes. […] To summarize, the unlawfulness of an amnesty law enacted for the benefit of military and police officials who committed [serious violations of human rights], who enjoy impunity during de facto regimes, has been declared by courts, of both the international community and the States that went through similar processes experienced by Uruguay during the same period in time. Such rulings, given the similarity with the issue under analysis and the relevance that they have had, could not be ignored in the examination of the constitutionality of Law [No.] 15,848 and have been taken into account by the Corporation to issue the present ruling.30 42. In its judgment of February 24, 2011 in the Gelman case, the Court held that “the provisions of the Expiry Law that impede the investigation and punishment of serious violations of human rights lack effectiveness and, therefore cannot continue to obstruct the investigation of the facts of this case and the identification and punishment of those responsible, nor can they have the same or similar impact on other cases of serious violations of human rights recognized in the American Convention that may have occurred in Uruguay.”31 43. On November 1, 2011, Uruguay enacted Law 18,831, which amended Law 15,848. Law 18,831 states: Article 1. Full exercise of the punitive claims of the State are restored for crimes committed in the implementation of State terrorism up to March 1, 1985, and included in Article 1 of Law No. 15,848 of December 22, 1985. Article 2. No time limits of any kind shall be set -procedural, prescriptive, or expiry-relatedin the period between December 1986 and the entry into force of this law, for the crimes referred to in Article 1 of this law. Article 3. Let it hereby be declared that the crimes referred to in the foregoing articles are crimes against humanity in accordance with international treaties to which the Republic is party.32 29 5517). Law 15,848 of December 22, 1986 (evidence file, annex XLIV to the answering brief, fs. 5337 to Supreme Court. Judgment No. 365. Sabalsagaray Curutchet. Blanca Stela. Complaint. Objection of Unconstitutionality Arts. 1, 3 and 4 of Law 15,848, File card 97-397 /2004 (evidence file, annex I to the answering brief, fs. 2258 to 2313). Cf. Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and Reparations, para. 219. 30 31 Case of Gelman v. Uruguay, Merits and Reparations, para. 232. Law 18,831, of November 1, 2011, enacted by the Republic of Uruguay (evidence file, annex XLIV to the answering brief, folios 5337 to 5517). 32 14