12. The petitioners affirmed that the attack on the AMIA is not an isolated incident, but is linked to another terrorist attack that occurred on March 17, 1992 against the building of the Israeli Embassy in Argentina in which 22 people died and at least 346 were injured. This attack, the petitioners report, has not been clarified either and has also gone unpunished to date. 13. Regarding the duty of prevention of the Argentine State, the petitioners indicated that sufficient measures were not adopted to prevent the attack, even though the State was aware of the existing risk situation of the buildings linked to the Jewish community in Buenos Aires. In particular, they argued that there was a lack of diligent surveillance of the suspects of the first attack; dismissal of crucial intelligence information; lack of action or precaution in the face of the low-altitude overflight helicopter by the building during the early morning on the day of the attack; and lack of reinforced police control of the AMIA headquarters, since, at the time of the attack, the police vehicle destined to guard the building had no battery and the police had no other communications equipment other than a walkie-talkie. 14. In this regard, the petitioners argued that the State is responsible for the lack of prevention in relation to the right to life of the deceased persons and the right to integrity of the injured persons, for not having taken the measures that were reasonably expected to prevent the attack. The petitioners also added that after the attack the absence of a disaster contingency protocol was evident, and that no immediate measures were taken on border and immigration matters. 15. The petitioners also indicated that the Argentine State is responsible for the extensive and very serious irregularities that were committed during the investigation, which denote not only a failure to adopt the necessary measures to achieve a successful investigation, but also an intention to divert the investigation, covering up the foreign and local individuals responsible for the attack. 16. The petitioners reported that the initial investigation was carried out by the Federal Criminal and Correctional Court No. 9 and that it was brought to trial in 1999. During said investigation, they complained, the State intentionally failed to follow logical lines that arose of the investigation; the State directed the investigation towards innocent people; it set aside the rules of due process; the State agreed politically on the outcome of the case; it illegitimately deprived defendants of their liberty; extorted witnesses; diverted state funds; it ruled against local law; it hid files and prevented the complainants from accessing the judicial file. 17. The petitioners stated that, in 2004, the Federal Oral Criminal Court No. 3 declared the nullity of a large part of the investigation, considering that the action of the judge in charge of the investigation was partialized and that it affected the rights to due process and defense in court. In said judgment, the petitioners added that it was shown that the judicial investigation used false evidence obtained from illicit state activities deployed in order to accuse members of the Buenos Aires Province Police of being part of the local connection of the attack. 18. In this sense, the petitioners affirmed that, even after the cover-up maneuver was discovered, the judicial case continued to be conducted by the State Intelligence Secretariat and influenced by foreign agencies, for which reason, for years, no progress was made in determining the truth, since the investigation would be far from being exhaustive and impartial. In this sense, the petitioners argued that the lack of investigation was serious and deliberate and that the State did not adopt the minimum precautions to undertake a successful investigation, it also displayed its capacity to divert the investigation, thereby sealing the cover-up of the foreign and local individuals responsible for the attack. 19. The petitioners indicated that various judicial officials, the National Executive Branch, agents of the State Intelligence Secretariat (SIDE) and the Argentine Federal Police (PFA) were tried for covering up the attack and those who were truly responsible. They reported that in May 2019 the Federal Oral Criminal Court No. 2 issued a ruling that -despite characterizing the cover-up maneuvers as serious human rights violationsimposed criminal sanctions that the petitioners consider to be disproportionately low. Likewise, the petitioners argued that the conviction for the cover-up of the attack is still not final and that the investigation against several defendants remains to be advanced. Finally, they indicated that there was a lack of impartiality and independence of the judges and prosecutors in charge investigating the causes of the attack and the cover-up. 5