26. On July 11, 2000, 25 days after the birth, the prosecutor, having been informed of the facts by Mr. Fornerón, asked the investigating judge to adopt precautionary measures, owing to the uncertainty about the fate of the child and to the contradictions in the statements made by the mother. In his brief, the prosecutor indicated that it could not be ignored “that one of the offenses established in Title 4, Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code had been committed,” corresponding to elimination and substitution of civil status and identify.22 27. On July 28, 2000, the investigating judge determined “the irrelevance” of some of the measures requested by the prosecutor, because “it [was] clear that, in the instant case, none of the unlawful conducts established and sanctioned [in the Criminal Code] had been committed; […] notwithstanding the particular characteristics of the birth and subsequent surrender of the [child], in a place located more than 100 kilometers from the domicile of the [mother].” On August 2, 2000, the prosecutor formulated a “request for a preliminary investigation” into the presumed perpetration of offenses established in articles 138 and 139(2) of the Criminal Code.23 28. On August 4, 2000, the investigating judge decided to file the proceedings because the facts “do not correspond to the definition of any offense.” In addition, he considered, among other grounds, that “since [Mr. Fornerón] had not acknowledged the [child] as his child born out of wedlock, and irrespective of the reasons why this was not done, he has not yet been summoned as the father of the child,”24 so that the conduct of Ms. Enríquez “is not designed to violate [Mr.] Fornerón’s civil status as a father, simply because he lacks this status until he acknowledges his presumed daughter”; thus her conduct was not punishable under article 138 of the Criminal Code. In addition, in the said articles 138 and 139, the passive subjects of the crime are minors, and “the alteration [they establish] refers to the civil status of another individual, because if it referred to that of the author, no offense would have been committed.”25 29. On August 10, 2000, the prosecutor filed an appeal against the decision to archive the case.26 On September 12, 2000, the Gualeguay Criminal Chamber revoked the decision appealed and ordered the acting judge to continue investigating the case.27 On January 31, 2001, the Investigating indicated that, having analyzed numerous pieces of evidence, he had “arrived at the same conclusion as [previously],” and therefore ordered that the case be archived. 28 On February 5, 2001, the prosecutor filed an appeal against this decision in which he underscored that Mr. Fornerón had acknowledged his daughter and had submitted to DNA testing that confirmed his paternity, despite which the investigating judge archived the case, this time without using the argument that there was no violation of the civil status 22 Cf. Brief of the prosecutor of July 11, 2000, supra note 19, folios 41 and 42. 23 Cf. Ruling of the investigating judge of Rosario del Tala of July 28, 2000, and the prosecutor’s request for a preliminary investigation of August 2, 2000 (file of attachments to the Merits Report, attachments 6 and 7, folios 50 to 60). 24 The evidence in the case file before this Court shows that the information on Mr. Fornerón’s acknowledgement of his daughter was incorporated into the case file in September 2000; that is, after the ruling of the investigating judge (file of attachments to the answer, tome II, folios 2765 to 2769). 25 Cf. Ruling of the investigating judge of Rosario del Tala of August 4, 2000 (file of attachments to the Merits Report, attachment 8, folios 63 to 69). 26 Cf. Appeal filed by the prosecutor on August 10, 2000 (file of attachments to the Merits Report, attachment 9, folios 71 to 80). 27 Cf. Ruling of the Gualeguay Criminal Chamber of September 12, 2000 (file of attachments to the Merits Report, attachment 10, folios 82 and 83). 28 Cf. Ruling of the investigating judge of January 31, 2001 (file of attachments to the Merits Report, attachment 11, folios 85 to 97). 10