the case was provisionally dismissed, a decision that was appealed and revoked and, on December 30, 2009, the judge of the proceeding provisionally dismissed the presumed participant for the second time. Nevertheless, according to the case file, on August 26, 2011, case No. S-85,714 was forwarded to the Criminal Appeals and Guarantees Chamber of the La Plata Judicial Department, to hold the oral public proceeding regarding the said presumed participant, pursuant to the decision of the Supreme Court of Justice of the province of Buenos Aires of June 18, 2013 (supra paras. 44 to 50 and 60 to 72). B.1. Omissions in following up on lines of investigation and in collecting evidence 101. This Court has established that, in order to guarantee effectiveness, when investigating human rights violations, it is essential to avoid omissions in the collection of evidence and in following up on logical lines of investigation. 198 102. As indicated supra, it is not incumbent on the Court to analyze the hypotheses on authorship developed during the investigation of the events and, consequently, to determine individual responsibilities, the definition of which corresponds to the domestic criminal courts. 199 Nevertheless, the Court has stipulated that when the “facts refer to the violent death of a person, the investigation opened must be conducted in such a way that it can ensure the appropriate analysis of the corresponding hypotheses of authorship, in particular those that infer the participation of State agents.” 200 103. In this regard, first, the Court takes note that, following the acquittal of the federal police agent indicted in this case, the judge in charge of the criminal proceedings was subjected to an investigation by the Office of the Prosecutor General of the Supreme Court of Justice of Buenos Aires owing to his actions during the course of the investigation. Thus, the report that the Assistant Prosecutor General presented to the president of that court recorded that “the irregularities that [he found] were decisive for the failure of the investigation.” In this report, the Assistant Prosecutor General described the lines of investigation that should have been followed up on in order to determine the motive for the murder, among others, the “matter [… of the] warehouse abutting the Police Precinct where [Mr. Gutiérrez] served. Regarding the determination of the motive and the possible relationship between the accused […] and the victim, and also the individualization of the second participant in the murder, [… he] criticized […] the lack of investigative activity in this regard […]. 201 104. The Court has also taken note that, during the preliminary investigation stage, the following evidence, inter alia, was gathered concerning the motive for the extrajudicial execution of Assistant Commissioner Gutiérrez: (a) in a statement of September 7, 1994, before the Second Police Precinct of La Plata (supra para. 45), Nilda del Valle Maldonado, wife of Mr. Gutiérrez, indicated as a relevant fact, that he had visited the said bonded warehouse and that, on receiving his personal effects after his death, her attention was drawn to the fact that her husband’s strongbox was open, because he had always kept it 198 Cf. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 1, 2005. Series C No. 120, paras. 88 and 105, and Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2011. Series C No. 232, para. 146. 199 Cf. Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Merits. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 37, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas, supra, para. 41. 200 Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009. Series C No. 196, para. 96. 201 Cf. Report of the Assistant Prosecutor General of the Supreme Court of Justice of Buenos Aires of May 12, 2004 (file of annexes to the submission brief, folio 287). 40