A/HRC/26/7 17. Investigation and trial of crimes committed during the military regime in the country’s recent past. The inaction that had characterized the State during the period in which Law No. 15.848 of 1986, known as the Law on the Expiry of the Punitive Claims of the State, had been enforced, was over. In 2005, the paradigm of impunity had shifted when new claims were considered as being beyond the scope of the Expiry Law, and the administrative acts that had provided that the Law was applicable to such claims were revoked. In 2011, the punitive claims of the State that had been deemed to have expired under Law No. 15.848 were re-established pursuant to Law No. 18.831, thus restoring the competence of the judiciary over those cases. At the same time, the State accepted responsibility for the cases of human rights violations that had resulted from State terrorism and repressive regional coordination through Operation Condor. 18. The path towards the re-establishment of truth, the full operation of justice and the punishment of crimes had not been free from difficulties. In 2013, the Supreme Court of Justice had declared two articles of Law 18.831 to be unconstitutional. Those articles had provided that no period of limitation or expiry would apply between 22 December 1986 and the entry into force of that law in October 2011 in respect of grave violations of human rights committed during the civil-military dictatorship, and that such offences constituted crimes against humanity in accordance with international treaties to which Uruguay was a party. 19. While those two articles had been declared unconstitutional with respect to some specific cases, the Supreme Court considered that the law that had introduced the crime of enforced disappearance must not be applied retroactively to cases of enforced disappearance carried out during the military dictatorship, therefore allowing the statute of limitations to apply in those cases. Trials that were currently under way in various courts in Uruguay regarding serious human rights violations, many of them involving enforced disappearances, had continued, although they now faced different positions regarding the imprescriptible nature of the crime of forced disappearance. 20. The Government of Uruguay, for judicial and ethical reasons, wished to continue on the path of truth and justice; the delegation reaffirmed the Government’s commitment to completely fulfilling its international obligations. 21. The delegation acknowledged that there were still areas where further improvements were needed and which required greater resource mobilization and the implementation of new tools. It highlighted the important role of civil society. 22. The delegation referred to the 44 voluntary pledges and commitments set out in the national report, which were targeted at strengthening the protection of human rights in the country. It welcomed contributions that might help Uruguay to improve the quality of its policies and the efficiency of its institutions for the protection of human rights. B. Interactive dialogue and responses by the State under review 23. During the interactive dialogue, 81 delegations made statements. Recommendations made during the dialogue are to be found in section II of the present report. All written statements of the delegations, to be checked against delivery on the United Nations webcast archives,1 are posted on the extranet of the Human Rights Council when available.2 1 2 http://webtv.un.org/meetings-events/human-rights-council/universal-periodic-review/18thupr/watch/uruguay-review-18th-session-of-universal-periodic-review/3122325213001. https://extranet.ohchr.org/sites/upr/Sessions/18session/Uruguay/Pages/default.aspx. 5