5 Security. Regarding this, they state that Argentine Federal Police had not taken swift action to discipline those involved and that the criminal proceedings initiated against the suspected perpetrators of the torture had not yielded any results. 32. They state that the First Court of the Chamber of Criminal and Correctional Appeals of the La Plata Judicial District acquitted Officer Santillán, ruling that there were insurmountable doubts as to his responsibility for the facts. 33. They add that witness David Silva, after having testified in three occasions against Officer Santillán, had recanted his testimony during the trial. In the year following the oral trial, Silva had insisted on his accusation of Santillán as the perpetrator of Gutiérrez’s murder before a Special Commission of the Chamber of Deputies, created to investigate suspected acts of corruption in the customs administration, the Special Investigative Commission on the Probable Commission of Illicit Activities Perpetrated through the National Customs Administration (hereinafter “Special Commission” or “Special Investigative Commission” or “Special Investigative Commission of the Chamber of Deputies”). He stated before that Commission that before the trial, he had been detained for three days, during which he had been subjected to torture and was forced to testify differently. The petitioners state that the detention, torture and threats that Mr. Silva was subjected to in order to get him to change his testimony were never investigated. 34. Moreover, they indicate another irregularity in the trial: That Mrs. Claudia Acuña, who had testified in favor of Officer Santillán, had recanted her testimony before the Special Commission, stating that her statement had been made under emotional duress because Santillán’s father had threatened to take her granddaughter away. This threat was not investigated by the court either. 35. They state that two and a half months after the acquittal of Santillán, the Special Investigative Commission had detected serious irregularities in the investigation into the murder of Deputy Commissioner Guitérrez, which prompted the president supervising the case to request that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Province of Buenos Aires consider re-opening the case. 36. During the procedure, the petitioners informed the Commission that in November 2005, the police protection located at the homes of Mr. Gutiérrez’s widow and brother had been removed without consulting them, even though it was a measure accepted by the Argentine government as part of the friendly settlement process that was being followed at the time. 37. In their communication of July 5, 2007, the petitioners reiterated that the lack of progress by the intervening authorities in the investigation of the case and the failure of the measures adopted by the State to guarantee the protection of the witnesses, investigators, and most of all the family members of Jorge Omar Gutiérrez, had, among other issues, demonstrated the Argentine State’s lack of willingness to arrive at a settlement, for which reason it was decided to terminate friendly settlement process. Regarding the acknowledgment of responsibility, which the government of the Province of Buenos Aires issued through Decree 3241/2006, the petitioners state that it was a partial recognition, as it leaves out the violation of the right to life of Jorge Omar Gutiérrez. 38. In communication dated August 10, 2009, the petitioners informed the Commission that criminal case No. 5-10888-2 under which the murder of Deputy Commissioner Jorge Omar Gutiérrez was being investigated, ran the risk of expiring on the 29th of that same month because the type of crime being investigated has a statue of limitations of 15 years, in which case the murder of Mr. Gutiérrez would go unpunished. They told the Commission that in 2006, the lead judge of the Second Court of Transition, who was in charge of the case, dismissed the only defendant, resulting in the closure of the investigation. The family filed an appeal and the prosecutor appealed, for which reason on November 12, 2008, the First Court of the Chamber of Appeals and Guarantees in Criminal Matters of La Plata decided to revoke the provisional dismissal to the benefit of Francisco Severo Mostajo because of the existence of “evidence for suspecting the participation of Mostajo in the incident.” Later, the petitioners reported that the interruption of the statute of limitations had been achieved thanks to the action of the individual victims. They managed to get the Chamber of Appeals and Guarantees in Criminal Matters of the