Rights to issue the necessary resolutions for the fulfillment of the objectives established in the work agenda
attached to the mentioned minutes of agreement. According to the records in the file, Human Rights Watch has
not been involved from that moment on.
5.
In a brief dated March 9, 2009, the petitioners indicated the IACHR that none of the points that the State
had agreed to had been fully complied. Consequently, they considered the friendly settlement process
concluded and urged the approval of the admissibility and merits report. On July 1, 2009, the petitioners
informed the Commission that they had held meetings with representatives of the State and that, in due course,
they would report a possible resumption of the friendly settlement process. On November 4, 2009, in the
framework of the 137° Period of Sessions of the Commission, a working meeting was held between the parties
in which the petitioners agreed to resume the friendly settlement process until March 2010 provided that the
State adopted a series of measures.
6.
Finally, on April 15, 2010, the petitioners indicated to the IACHR that, as of that date, there had been
little progress in the friendly settlement process, for which they requested that the study on the admissibility
and merits of the petition resumed. On June 29, 2012, the Commission informed the parties of its decision to
defer the admissibility analysis until the debate and decision on the merits, in application of Article 36 (3) of
its Rules of Procedure. In a communication received on October 31, 2014, the petitioners forwarded their
document with additional observations on the merits. On November 18, 2014, the Commission forwarded said
document to the Argentine State. After requesting several extensions, the State submitted its brief with
additional observations on the merits on September 28, 2015.
7.
At the request of the petitioners, on July 27, 2015, the Commission entrusted the then Commissioner
Paulo Vanucchi, in his capacity as rapporteur for Argentina, to attend as an observer to the opening hearing of
oral trial held before the Federal Oral Criminal Court No. 2 into the cover-up of the attack.
8.
On March 7, 2017, the State expressed its willingness to restart the friendly settlement process. On May
15, 2017, the petitioners rejected the proposal and reiterated their willingness to continue with the
admissibility and merits process before the Commission.
9.
Lastly during the 174° Period of Sessions held in the city of Quito, Ecuador from November 8 to 14, 2019,
the IACHR, pursuant to Articles 30.5 and 37.5 of its regulations, convened the petitioners and the Argentine
State to an oral hearing. On that occasion, the Commission received the testimonial statements of Diana
Wassner and Adriana Reisfeld, offered by the petitioners, and listened to the considerations made by both the
petitioners' representatives and those of the State3.
III.

POSITION OF THE PARTIES
A. The Petitioners

10.
The petitioners reported that the attack took place at 09:53 a.m. on Monday, July 18, 1994, when a
Renault Trafic van carrying a large explosive charge crashed into the entrance of the building that housed the
headquarters of the Israeli-Argentinian Mutual Association, located at 633 Pasteur Street in the city of Buenos
Aires. As a result of the explosion, 85 people lost their lives and at least 151 other people were injured to varying
degrees.
11.
In general, the petitioners argued that the AMIA attack is one of the most tragic occurrences in the recent
history of Argentina and the region, which -more than 25 years after the facts- still remains unpunished, since
the Argentine State has not provided any response to clarify what happened. This situation of impunity, they
argued, is not due to the complexity of the event but to the political manipulation and deliberate state coverup, which have affected the case since its inception.

3

The audiovisual record of the hearing can be consulted at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyTmlo6Anos
4

Select target paragraph3