2 5. The petitioners submitted additional information on December 21, 2005, May 9, 2006, June 29, 2007, April 13, 2011, and December 12, 2011. The State submitted additional information on April 2, 2007. The additional information was duly transmitted to each of the parties. III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. Position of the petitioners 6. The petitioners maintain that Argentina is internationally responsible for depriving José Delfín Acosta Martínez of his life, owing to various injuries caused by police agents while he was in their custody, for failing to duly investigate the facts, which remain unpunished, and for the discrimination experienced by the presumed victim at the time of his detention due to his race. 7. They indicated that on April 5, 1996, Mr. José Delfín Acosta Martínez, an Uruguayan African descent, was eating breakfast in a confectionery shop at approximately 7:30 a.m. with several other persons present, some of whom had come out of a discotheque across the street. They stated that, after leaving the confectionery shop, the presumed victim started conversing with a Brazilian African descent named Wagner Gonçalvez Da Luz, who was with his girlfriend. 8. The petitioners stated that at that time, three patrol vehicles that had been driving slowly in the area arrived at that location; two of them stopped at the intersection of Rodríguez Peña and Sarmiento streets, and the third stopped at the corner of Av. Callao and Sarmiento. The agents who arrived included Sergeant Domingo Alberto Oliva, Corporal Hugo Marcelino Lezcano, and Deputy Inspector Pedro Aguilar. The petitioners said that one of between four and six police agents who got out of the patrol vehicles pointed his weapon at the Brazilian national’s head, later placing him against one of the vehicles with his hands raised. They added that, in light of these events, the brother of Wagner Gonçalvez Da Luz tried to prevent his brother’s detention, so he was introduced into patrol, car number 105, as well. The petitioners stated that on April 5, 1996, the Federal Police was conducting a razzia raid in the area where the events occurred. 9. They contended that the presumed victim attempted to reconcile the situation, that he informed the police officers that he was an Uruguayan national, that the persons they had detained had been at the discotheque and had not annoyed anyone, and that the detention was arbitrary “because evidently they had only been arrested because they are black.” The petitioners further said that one of the police officers took José Delfín Acosta Martínez’s identification document and threw him to the ground, which provoked a strong complaint from the presumed victim. They stated that in light of his complaints, the presumed victim was placed in the patrol vehicle number 305, adding that the presumed victim persistently demanded them to return him his identity document and that, after managing to get out of the patrol car, he was violently forced to get back into the vehicle. They stated that the presumed victim’s identity document was returned to him before the patrol vehicle departed from the place. 10. The petitioners alleged that the arrest of the presumed victim was arbitrary, because he had been conversing peacefully without disturbing the peace, was not in a state of inebriation, was not carrying a weapon, and the reasons for his detention were not explained to him. They maintain that, in accordance with the investigations of the police and the judge who heard the case, the detention of the presumed victim was based on two arguments: the first was an alleged anonymous complaint of possible disturbances by an inebriated and armed person on Sarmiento street; the second resulted from the application of the so-called “ebriation ordinance” (edicto de ebriedad). They argued than it was never