showed her a police badge and told her they were from the police, and that the victim had been a drunk. 19. The petitioners further note that it was from the reconstruction of the facts carried out with witness Silva, that experts were able to locate the impact of the bullet fired in a pillar of a bridge. The petitioners maintain that the declarations of these two witnesses indicate that the officer known as “Colorado” approached Deputy-Captain Gutiérrez as he was sitting on the train. According to these versions, the two men spoke, then Santillán passed by and turned around to double-back behind Gutiérrez, whereupon he fired the fatal shot. 20. The petitioners report that, the day after Alejandro Daniel Santillán was arrested and detained on September 23, 1994, the SSF-PFA presented declarations given by two minors implicating two other individuals in the killing. The minors recanted during the trial, as well as before the Special Investigative Commission of the National Chamber of Deputies, alleging that they had been tortured by the same two agents of the SSF-PF identified by witness David Silva as his torturers. The petitioners maintain that the investigation opened against the two agents in question has produced no results, nor has any police officer ever been disciplined in relation to these events. 21. Alejandro Daniel Santillán was held in preventive detention for just over two years. The hearing in his trial was held on November 11 and 12, 1996. He was absolved on the basis of “insurmountable doubts” (“dudas insalvables”) produced, the petitioners allege, principally as a result of the partial retraction by witness Silva, other doubts in relation to the testimony of Silva and Chumbita, and the alibi provided by his partner and her mother. 22. The petitioners maintain that the facts in question demonstrate the obstruction of justice by the Federal Police, which was patently obvious at the time of the trial, but was disregarded by the judiciary and has remained unanswered. They argue that the judiciary, for its part, conducted an investigation that was incomplete and deficient. The petitioners emphasize that no serious effort was made to identify the other alleged perpetrator referred to as “Colorado,” notwithstanding physical descriptions and related information provided by various witnesses. These factors ensured a prosecution that was partial and defective. Accordingly, they maintain that the State failed to comply with its obligations to investigate the killing, and prosecute and punish those responsible in accordance with due process. 23. The petitioners emphasize that their position with respect to the investigation and prosecution draws from and is supported by the findings of the “Special Investigative Commission on the probable commission of illegal acts perpetrated or produced in the National Customs Administration” formed by the Chamber of Deputies of the National Congress of Argentina. They report that the Special Commission found serious irregularities in the investigation into the killing of Jorge Omar Gutiérrez, and for that reason addressed the President of the Supreme Court of Justice of Buenos Aires to request that consideration be given to reopening the investigation. The petitioners further note that one of the judges who tried Alejandro Daniel Santillán referred in the sentence itself to investigative deficiencies that had impeded his ability to come to a conclusion about responsibility for the crime. In this sense, the petitioners contend that the human rights violations they set forth have in fact been recognized by the State. 24. They maintain that the case is admissible before the Inter-American Commission, in particular, because the domestic remedies corresponding to their claims were invoked and exhausted with the final sentence confirming the absolution of Santillán. With their presentations, the petitioners included a copy of the sentence issued by the First Court of the Chamber of Appeals in Criminal and Correctional Matters of Buenos Aires and some related appeals, all of which were unsuccessful. The petitioners note that, although the judicial investigation into the killing of Deputy-Captain Gutiérrez was reopened pursuant to written requests for investigative measures by the family, it has produced no advances. Further, while several cases were opened 4