other crimes related to the facts was dismissed. Likewise, the Federal Judge ruled that the action would continue in order to "deepen the search for Iván Eladio Torres Millacura along with the inquiries with regard to the reasons for his unexplained absence […]."140 129. Mrs. María Leontina Llaipén did not appeal the ruling. However, the Federal Public Prosecutor of first instance appealed the judgment on October 23, 2007, arguing, among other things, that “the circumstances of Mr. Torres Millacura’s disappearance are still not sufficiently established," for which reason the participation of all the police officials accused should not be discarded, especially when the pretrial examination "was in the middle of measures intended to locate the whereabouts [of Mr. Torres]." 141 130. In a judgment dated February 28, 2008, the Federal Appeals Chamber of Comodoro Rivadavia overturned the judgment handed down by the Federal Judge, partially annulling the dismissals and indicating that, in general, there was no lack of merit, for which reason it ordered that the investigations in the action continue. 142 The action was returned to the same federal court. 131. The federal judge in charge of the action had ordered that several evidentiary steps be taken, among them the investigation of the whereabouts of Mr. Torres through INTERPOL and the offering of a reward, as well as the gathering of several testimonies, phone tapping, and home searches. On January 20, 2011, the judge issued a new order for the 15 police officers belonging to the Chubut Police to be tried without preventive detention “as criminally liable perpetrators of the crime of enforced disappearance of persons against victim Iván Eladio Torres Millacura on October 3, 2003, in the city of Comodoro Rivadavia.” Likewise, the judge ordered "an embargo be placed on the property of [those] agents […] in order to guarantee the pecuniary penalty of criminal and civil liability that could be applied to them.” 143 This judgment was appealed by all those accused. 132. On May 26, 2001, the Comodoro Rivadavia Federal Appeals Chamber annulled the January 20, 2011, judgment based, among other things, on the reasoning that "the structure of the interlocutory ruling, aside from its length, is highly confusing and imprecise, as […] it does not differentiate the actions it reproaches of each of the accused and does not evidence a logical structure and construction.” 144 The judgment also indicates that "the magistrate has not specifically described the action brought against each one of the accused, concluding […] that they all contributed to impunity [but] without indicating what their contribution consisted of in each case, much less why that 'conviction of impunity' […] would be subsumed in the crime of enforced disappearance of persons." 145 According to the Federal Chamber of Appeals, this prevented the accused from learning with exactitude which facts were being used to accuse them and the specific reasons for which their intervention and participation in the disappearance of Mr. Torres Millacura was ruled proven. Specifically, that Chamber 140 Cf. Judgment ordered by the Federal Judge of Comodoro Rivadavia in case file 7020 of October 15, 2007 (case file of annexes to the answer to the application, annex 1, body XXIV, folios 22766 to 22769). 141 Cf. appeal filed by the Federal Prosecutor in charge of the Federal Prosecutor’s Office of Comodoro Rivadavia on October 23, 2007 (case file of annexes to the answer to the application, annex 1, body XXV, folios 22879 to 22880). 142 Cf. Judgment ordered by the Federal Appeals Chamber of Comodoro Rivadavia of February 28, 2008 (case file of annexes to the answer to the application, annex 1, body XXV, folios 23041 to 23057). 143 Cf. Judgment ordered by the Federal Judge of Comodoro Rivadavia in the case file 7020 of January 20, 2011 (case file of annexes to the answer to the application, annex 2, folios 23958 to 23959). 144 Cf. Judgment ordered by the Federal Appeals Chamber of Comodoro Rivadavia of May 26, 2011 (case file of annexes to the answer to the application, annex 1, body XXVIII, folio 23755). 145 Cf. Judgment ordered by the Federal Appeals Chamber of Comodoro Rivadavia on May 26, 2011 (case file of annexes to the answer to the application, annex 1, body XXVIII, folio 23755). 41