You are avoiding the point... The case was re-opened yet it was, archived under 277/1...which contradicts your claim..
Do you have, a, cite to support your claim that the case could not be reopened under 277/1....because it was...
Was, this just another mistake
In fact, if the investigation had been closed according to the terms of the first paragraph of the same article, it could not be reopened (cf. CPP, reviewed, 2016, 2nd ed., by Henriques Gaspar, Santos Cabral, Maia Costa, Oliveira Mendes, Pereira Madeira and Henriques da Graça, pp.929, 932-3.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/STJ_21_03_2017_Rejected.htmArticle 277 - Archiving of the investigation
1 - The Public Ministry shall, by dispatch, close the investigation, as soon as it has gathered sufficient evidence that the crime was not confirmed, that the arguido did not practice it in any way or that the procedure is legally inadmissible
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Annulment_request.htmIt's obvious that a crime was committed, because Madeleine disappeared. There was no evidence saying that a crime wasn't committed.
Although the crime wasn't identified, it wasn't possible to gather 'sufficient evidence' to prove that the arguidos 'did not practice it (the unidentified crime) in any way.'