20. The petitioners highlighted that in 2005 the State recognized its international responsibility for the failure to prevent and investigate the attack and agreed to promote an agenda of measures aimed at redirecting the investigations. However, the petitioners pointed out that the State did not show significant progress in complying with such commitments, therefore the State would continue to incur in international responsibility. 21. Likewise, the petitioners alleged that both the judicial process for the attack and for the cover-up have not been carried out within a reasonable period of time. They indicated that, although the case is complex due to the magnitude of the events and the political structures involved, the delay has not been due to this, rather to the constant obstruction of the State and the multiple cover-up maneuvers that curtailed the investigation. Along these lines, they affirmed that the only reason the investigations are still continuing is because of the tireless fight of the victims' families. 22. The petitioners alleged that in the investigation there is a large accumulation of classified information that was not shared with them until 2001, while another large number of documents was kept secret until 2015. They indicated that the information they currently have is so abundant and complex that, by not providing advice or guidance to the complainants for their understanding, the State is not truly guaranteeing the full access and capacity to act of the victims. They also denounced that some files were located in places without any safeguards or protection to avoid their damage over time. In addition, they indicated that the State has not taken the necessary actions for other countries to share the information they have on the attack. 23. The petitioners indicated that the Argentine State also violated the right to humane treatment of the next of kin of the victims of the attack, both because of the suffering caused as a result of the particular circumstances of the violations perpetrated against their loved ones, and for the effort deployed and the steps taken to obtain justice. In particular, they referred to the tireless fight that the victims' families and the Active Memory organization have waged for more than 25 years in the search for truth and justice. 24. Finally, the petitioners stated that, despite their character as victims of the attack and plaintiffs in the judicial case, they do not have the possibility of corroborating the intelligence information incorporated into the investigation. They indicated that there would be evidence that the State knew or suspected that the attack could occur, as well as the identity of those who organized and participated in the attack, but that it was not seriously investigated, opting to cover up the facts. 25. The petitioners emphasized that the performance of intelligence agents as judicial auxiliaries deserves special attention because it was not until the moment when the secrecy covering their activities was lifted that the cover-up maneuvers were known, which explain the state of impunity of the investigation. 26. The petitioners asked the Commission to address the case as a serious violation of human rights. Likewise, they requested that the State be recommended to adopt a series of actions aimed at guaranteeing adequate reparation for the victims and other diverse measures of non-repetition, as well as various actions with the purpose of guaranteeing the right to the truth to sustain the collective memory of what happened. 27. By virtue of all of the above, the petitioners asked the Commission to declare the international responsibility of the Argentine State for the violation of the rights guaranteed in Articles 4, 5, 8, 13, and 25 of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1.1 and 2 of the same instrument. B. The Argentine State 28. During the processing of the case before the Commission, the Argentine State acknowledged its international responsibility for the alleged violations and ratified its position through the enactment of Decree 812/05. Said norm expressly indicates that Argentina recognizes its responsibility for violations of the right to life, humane treatment, fair trial, and judicial protection, and the duty to guarantee of Article 1 (1) of the Convention. 6