51 a. there is sufficient evidence in this case to “reasonably assert that the death of María Claudia García Gelman at the hands of State officials whom had her in custody in the context of a State policy that targeted sectors of the civilian population was a crime against humanity,” and thus, not subject to amnesty; b. the Expiry Law prevented the victim’s next of kin from being heard by a judge, violating the right to judicial protection. Said law also prevented the investigation, arrest, prosecution, and conviction of those responsible for the acts against María Claudia García Gelman and obstructed the clarification of her fate and whereabouts; c. the approval of the Expiry Law after the date of Uruguay’s ratification of the American Convention means that the State failed to comply with its obligation to adopt domestic legal effects as mandated by Article 2. That the law has not been applied by the Uruguayan courts in several cases is a significant development, but it does not sufficiently meet the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention; d. not only did Uruguay "fail to repeal the Expiry Law or render it ineffective, it also did not provide a remedy allowing for the reopening of judicial proceedings that have been closed pursuant to the Expiry Law." Similarly, the October 19, 2005 decision of the Court of Appeals of Uruguay that prevented the reopening of the investigation of Maria Claudia Garcia's enforced disappearance should be subject to a judicial remedy providing for the reopening of a decision deemed to be res judicata when crimes against humanity are involved; e. when the abovementioned Court of Appeals affirmed the application of the Expiry Law in October of 2005, Uruguay was already party to the Rome Statute, which identifies enforced disappearances as a crime against humanity; f. in light of the general obligations established in Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention, Uruguay violated Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention since April 19, 1985, for failing to adopt the necessary measures to protect Juan Gelman and María Macarena’s rights to judicial protection and to simple and effective recourse; g. Uruguay undertook additional obligations in regard to due process and the judicial protection of victims when it ratified the Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons on April of 1996 and the InterAmerican Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture on November 10, 1992. Given that the acts perpetrated against María Claudia constituted “cruel and inhumane treatment tantamount to torture,” the State is responsible for the violation of Articles 1, 6, 8, and 11 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture; and,