4 the case there occurred no exceptional circumstances that established an emergency situation or an abnormal load of tasks for the prosecuting bodies. 22. They said that the criminal case should have investigated the death of a police officer found dead in the seat of the car of the train that was taking him home. As there were witnesses to the incident – found and supplied in the case by the family members - that identified those responsible for the act (in fact they identified one of them in a legal identification), it may be noted that there isn’t any complexity in solving the case that would to date prevent the identification and punishment of those responsible. 23. They stated that when Dr. Marcela Garmendia’s started as the head of the Second Transitional Court in November 1998, she ordered the case closed. She ordered the case reopened at the insistence of the relatives, and since then very few of the evidence-gathering measures requested by the family members of the victims have been ordered and executed. 24. Regarding the activity of the Office of Public Prosecutor of the Province of Buenos Aires, they stated that its participation had been minimal and had not even proposed any evidence-gathering measures be taken. 25. The petitioners stated that the court had neither ordered nor taken the investigative measures requested by the plaintiffs, despite having a Special Investigative Commission of the Police of the Province of Buenos Aires available. 26. The petitioners claim that in this case, the State’s failure to provide effective remedies affects the family members of Deputy Commissioner Gutiérrez, making them indirect victims. 27. They add that during the visual inspection, the expert in gathering evidence who attended stated that the briefcase that was found at the feet of Gutiérrez’s body was half closed, as if someone had looked through it and had hurried to close it. However, this fact was not taken into consideration in the lines of inquiry. Likewise, it was determined that a diary with a black leather cover, which had its contents removed, was found inside the briefcase, a fact which was also not taken into consideration in the investigation. 28. They state that the main witness was found thanks to the efforts of the family members of the victim. This witness, David Silva, had identified the perpetrators of the murder by their nicknames and their police function. In his testimony, he had identified them as the “toll collectors” for all the vendors on the train, he gave a detailed account of how the facts took place, and he identified Daniel Santillán as the one who had shot Deputy Commissioner Gutiérrez in the back of the head. They add that thanks to the testimony of David Silva, the experts had found the impact of the bullet in a pillar of a bridge over which the train regularly crossed. 29. They add that the other witness, Alejandra Chumbita, had been consistent with Silva in the description of the attackers and their status as police officers, as well as the sequence of the events that lead to the death of Jorge Omar Gutiérrez. 30. They state that the creation of an Investigative Commission for the case – the Investigative Commission of the Buenos Aires Police - had been done by the police department itself and thanks to the persistent demands of the family members of the victim, not as a measure ordered by the court. 31. They claim that, days before the detention of agent Santillán, the Superintendent of Railway Security had denied to the court the existence of an agent fitting the description. Likewise, after the arrest, police authorities had tried to protect him by presenting the judge hearing the case with two statements by children incriminating two other persons under 18 years old for the death of Gutiérrez. They add that during the trial, the children had changed their statements, saying that they had been tortured and forced to make the accusations by the deputy officers of the Superintendent of Railway