92. Consequently, the Court finds it proved that the death of Jorge Omar Gutiérrez can be attributed to the State, so that the latter violated Article 4(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. VIII-2 RIGHTS TO JUDICIAL GUARANTEES AND TO JUDICIAL PROTECTION, IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATION TO RESPECT AND ENSURE THE RIGHTS A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 93. The Commission indicated that the judicial investigations in this case “showed indications of manipulation of [and negligence in] evidence gathering, obstruction of justice, and procedural delay, as well as a lack of due diligence in the investigation,” 184 so that the right of the next of kin of Jorge Omar Gutiérrez of “access to justice and to the truth” was violated. According to the Commission, Argentina “did not take prompt and effective measures to gather evidence that would have permitted the identification of those responsible, even though it had been provided with information by the victim’s next of kin and by eyewitnesses.” Based on the foregoing, it asserted that the State had violated Articles 8 and 25(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the next of kin of Jorge Omar Gutiérrez. 94. The representatives indicated that “the Argentine authorities responsible for ensuring an effective judicial response to the murder of Jorge Omar G[utiérrez] 185 failed to comply with their duty to conduct an investigation and an effective judicial proceeding that would lead to the prosecution and punishment of those responsible. This clearly violated the right of [the victim’s] next of kin to be heard within a reasonable time, 186 and for their claims to be processed before an independent and impartial court.” In this regard, they indicated that the next of kin of Mr. Gutiérrez “became the main promoters of the investigation,” which was characterized by a evident corporate concealment by the Argentine Federal Police with the support of the Police of the province of Buenos Aires, which included “serious threats, illegal detentions, and the torture of witnesses,” as well as the murder of the first judicial 184 The Commission stressed that: (a) “the police developed theories that had no logical relationship to the clear indications that the crime had a specific motive […]”; (b) “[a]uthorities such as the Railway Security Superintendence of the Federal Police, adopted certain measures that made it difficult to individualize the police agent described by the two eyewitnesses”; (c) “[t]he Railway Security Superintendence of the Federal Police brought before the federal justice system two adolescents detained by the Federal Police, who incriminated themselves for the death of Mr. Gutiérrez. Subsequently, the adolescents indicated that they had been victims of torture in order to incriminate themselves”; (d) “[o]ne eyewitness receive threats and was harassed, which led her to withdraw her testimony against the said police agent […],” and (e) “[t]he former companion and former motherin-law of the [federal police agent indicted as the perpetrator of the act], who was subsequently acquitted, stated […] that they had been coerced and threatened with having ‘their daughter and granddaughter,’ respectively, taken from them, if they did not support the alibi presented as a defense.” 185 According to the representatives, in this case, “this obligation to provide judicial protection corresponds not only to the judges and members of the Public Prosecution Service, but also includes the actions of members of the federal police and the police of the province of Buenos Aires, who function as assistants to the justice system.” 186 They emphasized that “no judicial ruling has been made that establishes who murdered Assistant Commissioner […] Gutiérrez, who covered up this crime, and why.” And all this, even though, in this case, “there have been no elements that could involve significant legal complexity,” and that “the victim’s next of kin have promoted the progress of the proceeding and have even fought to ensure that it was not archived.” Regarding the conduct of the competent authorities, they indicated that “[t]he actions of the judges responsible for the preliminary investigation stage, their inability to uncover the vehement attempts of the police forces to obstruct the investigation, the lack of interest […] in conducting a genuine and thorough investigation into the responsibility of the masterminds of the murder of [Assistant Commissioner] Gutiérrez, as well as into the other perpetrator of the murder […], and the strong and sustained opposition of the judge to the petitions of the injured parties […], are some of the reasons why […] there is still impunity” in this case. 37