28. The petitioners informed the IACHR that the Investigations Brigade to Search for Disappeared Persons was established on January 2, 2004, made up of members of the police. In their view, this is unconstitutional because it entails an investigation parallel to the official one that is not subject to a judge’s supervision, and the interrogation of witnesses outside of a legal proceeding. The petitioners took their complaint regarding the unconstitutionality of this situation to the State Prosecutor on March 2, 2004, and to the National Ombudsman [Defensor del Pueblo] and the Attorney General of the Nation on September 13, 2004. 29. Arguing that forced disappearance constitutes a federal offense and that the local authorities had not conducted a satisfactory investigation, the petitioners filed an appeal in cassation on January 22, 2005, in the case “Millacura Llaipen, Maria Leontina s/ plea as to the jurisdiction of the court” with respect to Ivan’s disappearance. In the plea, she requests that local jurisdiction be renounced in favor of federal jurisdiction. On March 16, 2005, the Superior Court of Chubut renounced its jurisdiction in the case in favor of the federal justice system and therefore, the federal State is now in charge of the legal investigation into the disappearance of Mr. Iván Eladio Torres.9 30. The petitioners claim that the respective authorities have failed to carry out an effective investigation and that it has been subject to an unwarranted delay given that more than two and a half years have transpired since the disappearance of a person was reported and the investigation has not been concluded, and no one is under investigation or accused thus far. In addition, the petitioners claim that neither the Public Prosecutor’s Office nor the judges have taken measures in response to the reports made by friends of Iván Eladio Torres regarding cases of torture, unlawful coercion, and other abuses by police personnel, which are included in their testimonies. 31. The petitioners claim that the alleged facts constitute a violation by the State of several provisions of the American Convention, such as Article 2 (obligation to adopt provisions of domestic law), 5(1) (right to physical, mental, and moral integrity), 5(2) (prohibition on torture, and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment), 7 (right to personal liberty), and 8(1) (fair trial), in conjunction with Article 1(1) (obligation to respect and guarantee rights), and Articles I, II, and XII of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. B. Position of the State 32. The State has not responded directly to the allegations of fact submitted by the petitioners, nor has it contested the admissibility of the petition under examination. The only responses from the State were the May 26, 2004 communication to the IACHR requesting an extension of time to respond, which it has not done to date, and its communications concerning the precautionary measures granted by the IACHR. 33. Although the March 17, 2005 communication from the State in response to the request for precautionary measures N° 09-05 “Maria Leontina Millacura Llaipen et al” includes a report from the Public Prosecutor in the case of “Millacura Llaipen, Maria Leontina s/Dcia. Psta. Disappearance persons C. Rivadavia 2003” from which it can be inferred that some measures have been taken in the investigation of the case, the 9 Communication from the petitioners to the IACHR dated May 2, 2005 in response to the list of questions.