4 by the officers to keep the prisoner safe, and because it was noted by various types of tests that the blows could not have been self-inflicted by the presumed victim. 16. With regard to the facts and criminal investigations pursued after the death of the presumed victim, the petitioners stated that when the brother of the presumed victim, Angel Acosta Martínez, tried to identify the corpse of the presumed victim, he was interrogated by various police officers to find out if José Delfín Acosta Martínez had a history of epilepsy or addictive behavior; that Angel Acosta Martínez observed that the body showed marks of numerous blows that could not have been selfinflicted; that the police never returned to Angel Acosta Martínez the keys to the apartment where the two brothers lived; and that after his brother’s death someone entered to their apartment and removed personal belongings, photographs, and medical records. 17. The petitioners stated that on April 8, 1996, Angel Acosta Martínez held a press conference across from Police Station No. 5 of the Federal Police of Argentina for the purpose of filing proceedings related to the death of his brother, and that on April 9, 1996, the daily newspaper Clarín reported that the police communicated officially that the death of the presumed victim was “due to repeated intake of cocaine hydrochloride.” They indicated that on April 8, 1996, the police preliminary records on the death of the presumed victim due to inconclusive causes was admitted by the Judicial Branch of the Federation (Poder Judicial de la Federación), and that the National Criminal and Correctional Court (Juzgado Nacional en lo Criminal y Correccional) No. 10, presided over by Judge Raúl Eduardo Irigoyen, heard the case. 18. The petitioners stated that on April 25, 1996, Judge Raúl Eduardo Irigoyen ruled to dismiss the case. They argued that the only testimonies taken into account for that decision were from two people who reaffirmed the police version (Oscar Darío Almada and Luis Alberto Cordero), and that the judge unjustifiably rejected two testimonies of people who stated that the presumed victim was detained without cause. The petitioners affirmed that, in response to the dismissal of the case, they filed an appeal with the National Criminal and Correctional Chamber (Cámara Nacional en lo Criminal y Correccional) to continue the investigation and offer new evidence, and affirmed that the said court confirmed the judgment of the judge of the court of first instance to the effect that no crime had been committed. 19. The petitioners said that the family of the presumed victim contacted the Uruguayan ministry of foreign affairs and that, based on those efforts, initiated proceedings in the Oriental Republic of Uruguay related to the case, with the Learned Criminal Court of First Instance (Juzgado Letrado de Primera Instancia) No. 13. It authorized the performance of a new autopsy, the results of which contradicted the version of the Federal Police of Argentina, according to which the presumed victim had had convulsions and had self-inflicted the injuries that caused his death. They stated that, according to the autopsy, the presumed victim had various injuries, one on the lower back, others on the upper and lower arms, and on the skull. 20. The petitioners indicated that the mother of the presumed victim, taking into account Uruguayan expert opinion, on April 29, 1998, requested Judge Raúl Irigoyen to reopen the case. They stated that the case was reopened on May 12, 1998, to create a medical board made up of four members of the Forensic Medical Corps (Cuérpo Médico Forense) attached to the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic of Argentina, for the purpose of answering various questions. They said that the family of the presumed victim contested the forensic report answering the questions because the experts had based their report on data drawn exclusively from the police investigation, which had been strongly questioned.