a) On October 23, 2000, information was provided that, the expert calligraphic appraisal performed on the pertinent parts (“times”) of the logbook of the Avellaneda Second Precinct, had concluded that these had been falsified; 219 b) The former Inspector who had taken part in the investigation since 1994 told the judge of the proceeding, inter alia, that, “on one occasion, [he had] interviewed [the two] train guards who found Gutiérrez dead, [who told him] that on several occasions before the oral proceeding, the federal police had tried to bribe them with money.” 220 He also stated that, on one occasion, the then provincial Minister of Security had told him that he knew that the police agent indicted was guilty, but that “his hands were tied.” In addition, the former Inspector indicated that he had evidence related to the presumed participant mentioned previously, but that this had been taken from “the UOM – Quilmes Sectional,” during a robbery that “had certain particularities, because nothing of value was stolen, but only information related to the investigation of the murder of [Mr.] Gutiérrez”; 221 c) One of the above-mentioned train guards stated that, two weeks after the murder, an individual in civilian clothing came to his home and said to him, “you were in the train, pibe, look here’s a lot of money, if you saw anything, forget it, because there’s lots of money”; 222 d) The brother of the then companion of the federal police agent indicted testified that the latter’s father had threatened him so that he would give false testimony in the criminal proceedings (supra para. 85); e) A former police agent of the province of Buenos Aires testified that, during the time he participated in the investigation, he noted “various irregularities as regards the investigative part, and could also note the irresponsibility and lack of interest of some public officials in discovering the truth.” He also stated that he “was unable to obtain the logistical support and personnel to conduct the investigation,” and that he had not received any collaboration in the investigation from the Commissioner Inspector who was his superior. 223 As already mentioned, this Commissioner Inspector was identified by a witness who was detained as the person who gave the order for the execution of Assistant Commissioner Gutiérrez (supra para. 88); f) Another Inspector stated that he had taken part in the investigation of the death of Assistant Commissioner Gutiérrez from the start; nevertheless, he was separated from the investigation, without being told the reasons for his transfer, 224 and 219 Cf. Expert appraisal of October 18, 2000, addressed to Transitional Court No. 2 of La Plata (file of annexes to the submission brief, folios 208 to 210). 220 Cf. Statement of September 26, 2000, before Transitional Court No. 2 of La Plata (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, folios 1826-47 to 1826-48 and 1826-59). 221 Cf. Statement of September 21, 2000, before Transitional Court No. 2 of La Plata (file of annexes to the submission brief, folios 73, 74 and 242). 222 Cf. Statement of October 17, 2000, before Transitional Court No. 2 of La Plata (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, folio 1856). 223 Cf. Statement of October 11, 2000, before Transitional Court No. 2 of La Plata (file of annexes to the submission brief, folio 227). 224 Cf. Statement of October 5, 2000, before Transitional Court No. 2 of La Plata (file of annexes to the submission brief, folio 216). 44