"I recently heard that you went to Paris in 2000" is fine.
There is no need for a past participle because reported speech doesn't establish that kind of relationship between two events grammatically!
Of course the event of hearing about the trip is causally connected to the trip. Because one person went on a trip, there is a chain of events which leads to the other person hearing about it, years later. However, the causal chain only exists if the report is true! It is possible to hear about someone having gone to Paris in 2000, such that the report is fabricated, exaggerated or mistaken. It could have the wrong year, the wrong person, the wrong city.
It may help to study this sentence:
The reason I recently heard that you went to Paris in 2000 is that you had, in fact, gone to Paris in 2000".
"that you went to Paris in 2000" is reported speech, and so it exists in a kind of bubble which is causally disconnected to receiving the speech: it's a quoted idea which may or may not be true, and so isn't considered in a causal relation to real events, like receiving the report.
But "that you had, in fact, gone to Paris in 2000" is not reported speech: it is the reason why the speaker received the reported speech and so it is connected to the report.
Also, another example for good measure:
I heard that you went to Paris in 2000. And so I did some digging and confirmed that, in fact, you had gone to Paris in 2000.