42 113. On March 31, 2000, María Macarena Tauriño met her paternal grandfather, Juan Gelman, for the first time, and learned about the events surrounding the disappearance of her biological parents. 123 114. As a result of the mentioned facts, María Macarena Tauriño agreed to a DNA test that same year, to determine the possible kinship with the Gelman family, which resulted in a 99.998% positive identification.124 115. Subsequently, María Macarena Tauriño Vivián brought a motion to reclaim legitimate parentage before the 17º Family Court in Montevideo, and on March 8, 2005, the Court ordered the nullification of her birth certificate, wherein it stated that she was the legitimate child of Angel Tauriño Rodríguez and Esmeralda Vivián, and issued her one registering her as the legitimate daughter of Marcelo Ariel Gelman and María Claudia García Iruretagoyena, born in Montevideo on November 1, 1976, paternal granddaughter of Juan Gelman Burichson and Berta Schubaroof, both Argentine citizens, and maternal granddaughter of Juan Antonio García Iruretagoyena, a citizen of Spain, and María Eugenia Cassinelli, an Argentine citizen, respectively. 125 116. Thereafter, María Macarena decided to go ahead and amend all pertinent documents and civil registries to reflect her name change from María Macarena Tauriño to María Macarena Gelman Garcia Iruretagoyena.126 C. The abduction and suppression of the identity of the girl Maria Macarena Gelman as a form of enforced disappearance 117. Given that this concerns the daughter of a disappeared woman, abducted a few days after being born in captivity, and subsequently withheld and separated from her mother just a few weeks after being born, and her identity being suppressed upon being handed over to a family that was not her own, beyond what alleged by the Commission and the representatives, the Court will analyze the legal qualification of the case. 127                                                          123 Cf. Complaint original presented by María Macarena Gelman and Juan Gelmanante of the InterAmerican Commission, evidence, folios 98 and 150; additional comments on the merits presented by the representatives of María Macarena Gelman and Juan Gelman during the proceeding before the Commission, , evidence, folio 1916, and Mauricio Rodríguez: “The Gelman Case. Journalism and human rights” (ediciones Cruz del Sur, Uruguay, 2006), evidence, folios 2989 and 3002. 124 Cf. Final Judgment of First Instance of March 8, 2005. Family Court of 17th Round, in captioned orders “Tauriño Vivian María Macarena V. Vivian Esmeralda- Gelman Burichson Juan- Schubaroff BertaGarcía Iruretagoyena Juan A. Civil Status Actions,” evidence, folios 363, 373 and 374. 125 Cf. Final Judgment of First Instance of March 8, 2005, supra note 124, evidence, folios 362 to 381. 126 Cf. Statement rendered by María Macarena Gelman during the public hearing; Statement of María Macarena Gelman before the Inter-American Commission, evidence, folio 246. 127 In the Case of The Dos Erres Massacre V. Guatemala, The Court noted “the special gravity of being able to attribute to a State Party to the Convention the charge of having applied or tolerated within its territory a systematic practice of abductions and illegal retention of minors”, but the facts were not considered enforced disappearance. Case of The Dos Erres Massacre V. Guatemala. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211, paras. 177 and 199.