material and intellectual authors of the attack, and the litigation of the proceedings that were initiated in order to clarify the cover-up maneuvers31. 3. The processes into the cover-up of the attack 77. In August 2000, and as a result of the testimony given by an employee of Federal Court No. 9 before the Bicameral Commission for the Follow-up of the Investigation of the Attacks on the Embassy of Israel and the AMIA, an investigation was opened for the alleged crime of covering up the attack32. 78. This investigation gained relevance from the revelations that emerged during the oral and public debate carried out between 2001 and 2004 by the TOF 3 against Carlos Telleldín and the Buenos Aires police officers. At the end of that trial, as has been indicated, the Court reached the conclusion that the accusatory hypothesis upheld by Judge Galeano and the prosecutors “was armed in a perverse manner, thereby violating not only the judge's guarantee of impartiality, but [also] the entire catalog of procedural principles of inherent constitutional hierarchy”33 (see supra para. 64). 79. The cover-up actions of the AMIA attack investigated since the year 2000 by national judges can be roughly summarized in two main points. 80. First, it is investigated the decision taken by Judge Galeano to order the disbursement of $400,000 dollars, from a secret budget item of the State Intelligence Secretariat, to the accused Carlos Telleldín, in order for him to declare that he had delivered the Renault Trafic van -whose remains were found in the ruins of the AMIA- to a group of members of the Police of the Province of Buenos Aires, thereby diverting the investigation into the attack. 81. Secondly, it is investigated whether the judicial officials in charge of the investigation -together with police officers who acted as investigative assistants, former leaders of organizations of the Jewish community in Argentina, intelligence agents, and senior officials of the National Executive Power during the presidency of Carlos Menem- prevented the thorough research of a line of investigation that linked an Argentine citizen of Syrian origin named Alberto Kanoore Edul and people around him to the attack. 82. The case for the cover-up was instructed by various judges of the Federal Criminal and Correctional jurisdiction of the City of Buenos Aires. On August 6, 2015, the debate hearings began before the Federal Oral Criminal Court No. 2 of the Federal Capital (TOF 2). On February 28, 2019, the Court communicated its verdict and on May 3 of the same year, it released the grounds for the judgment. The TOF 2 considered that the actions described in the preceding paragraphs were accredited and sentenced former Judge Juan José Galeano, prosecutors Mullen and Barbaccia, and police officers and the State Intelligence Secretariat to various prison terms. According to the information in the possession of the Commission, at the time of approval of this report, the TOF 2 decision is being reviewed by the appeal courts34. 83. The Commission has been informed that various complaints have been filed in the national courts investigating the criminal responsibility of a group of people for facts related to the cover-up of the attack. Among the people who are charged in these cases are the then secretaries of the Federal Criminal Court 9, officials of the National Executive Power, and other individuals who participated in the investigation led by former Judge Galeano35. 84. Finally, in January 2015, the then head of the UFI AMIA, Alberto Nisman, presented a criminal complaint before a Federal Criminal and Correctional Court in which he accused various state officials and individuals Annex 11. UFI AMIA. Management Report - July 2016. Annex 13 to the petitioner's communication dated November 11, 2019. Annex 12. Judgment of the Federal Oral Criminal Court No. 2 dated May 3, 2019, p. 69. Annex 2 to the petitioner's communication dated November 11, 2019. 33 Annex 2. Judgment of the TOF 3. Chapter VIII, pp. 2944. Annex 1 to the petitioner's communication dated November 11, 2019 34 Petitioner's communication dated November 11, 2019. Page 50 to 51. 35 Petitioner's communication dated November 11, 2019. Page 63 to 66. 31 32 15