B.1. Actions taken by the Chubut provincial authorities. 117. Mrs. Millacura Llaipén testified that she went to the First Precinct on October 4, 2003, to file her first complaint over the disappearance of her son. She repeated the visit on October 6 and October 8, but was turned away there. 119 In this regard, the Tribunal notes that Mrs. Millacura Llaipén’s complaint was formally received by the First Precinct on October 14, 2003. 120 That complaint opened the case file “Millacura Llaipén María Leontina S./ dcia. Pta. Desaparición Personas C. Rivadavia 2003” and brought in the participation of Examining Judge No. 2 of the city of Comodoro Rivadavia. 121 118. In this regard, from the start of the actions carried out by the First Precinct, these were directed not toward investigating the disappearance of Mr. Iván Eladio Torres, but rather toward the search for him as a "missing person," 122 even though Mrs. Millacura Llaipén’s complaint had expressed her suspicion that the police were involved in his disappearance. Thus, on October 15, 2003, a police officer from that institution was assigned to "conduct inquiries toward locating the current whereabouts of Mr. Iván Eladio Torres [Millacura].”123 Starting on that day, the First Precinct carried out several “preliminary actions.”124 On this point, the representatives alleged that the police of the First Precinct carried out those actions on their own without having been ordered or authorized to do so by the corresponding investigative judge. However, the representatives did not present arguments in this regard. 119. The Court also notes that in testimony given by Mrs. Millacura Llaipén on November 6, 2003, before Examining Judge No. 2, she stated that in the complaint of October 14, 2003, received by the personnel of the First Precinct (supra para. 117), she had not referred to some facts contained therein, had not answered some questions in the ways in which her answers were recorded by those receiving her complaint, and that those persons had not included some facts she had mentioned. 125 In this regard, it should be noted that despite this testimony given by Mrs. Millacura Llaipén before 119 Cf. brief filed by Mrs. María Leontina Millacura Llaipén of November 5, 2003, before the Examining Judge No. 2 of the Province of Chubut, wherein “established as plaintiff,” among others (case file of annexes to the application, tome X, folio 7309). This is also clear from the complaint filed on October 14, 2003 by Mrs. María Leontina Millacura Llaipén before the First Precinct of Comodoro Rivadavia (case file of annexes to the application, tome X, folio 7202). 120 Cf. Complaint filed by la señora María Leontina Millacura Llaipén on October 14, 2003 before the First Precinct of Comodoro Rivadavia (case file of annexes to the application, tome X, folio 7199). 121 Cf. Oficial letter No. 831./03Jud of the First Section of the Police Department of Comodoro Rivadavia on October 14, 2003 (case file of annexes to the application, tome X, folio 7204). 122 Cf. Agreement of the Chief of the First Section of the Police Department of Comodoro Rivadavia, Province of Chubut, on October 15, 2003 (case file of annexes to the application, tome X, folio 7205). 123 Cf. Legal Notice of the Oficial Inspector of the First Section of the Police Department of Comodoro Rivadavia, Province of Chubut, on October 15, 2003 (case file of annexes to the application, tome X, folio 7206). 124 Among other things, they ordered and received testimony from: Walter Marcos Mansilla, Mauricio David Agüero, Tamara Elizabeth Bolívar, Cristian Eduardo Gamin. Likewise, they interviewed Juan Javier Villalba, Oscar Alberto Vera, and Luis Alberto Bolívar. They also called on several provincial and federal authorities to request their support for locating Iván Eladio Torres Millacura, including outside of Argentina. Those authorities included the Argentine Naval Command, the National Gerdarmerie, and the Argentine Federal Police. The police also carried out "sweeps" in different areas of the city of Comorodo Rivadavia (file annexes to the application, volume X, annex 3, pages 7205 to 7266). 125 Among other things, for example, Mrs. Millacura Llaipén stated that she never said that her son took drugs, that she had given the name of the police officer driving the unit that transported her son to the place known as Km. 8, and that she had indicated that the day before her son’s disappearance, two police officers had entered her home, beaten a person that they found there, and threatened her daughter, telling her to "shut her mouth," because if not the same thing would happen to her as happened to her brother (case file of the annexes to the application, tome X, annex 3, pages 7376 to 7377). 37