3 14. The petitioners state that a security guard named Juan Carlos Rojas, who was off duty and on his way home, found the body of Deputy Commissioner Gutiérrez in one of the cars, and on arriving at the La Plata Terminal he reported the finding. They add that there is evidence to suggest that two members of the Argentine Federal Police who traveled on that stretch of railway were responsible for 3 the homicide. 15. They argue that the Argentine State has violated the rights of the victim and his family members by not conducting a serious investigation that would respect the right to due process leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible for the death of Deputy Commissioner Gutiérrez. They state that there was a cover-up and that those responsible remain in impunity because they have not been punished through judicial actions that should have included all possible lines of investigation. 16. They add that from August 1994 to date there has been no judicial ruling on the acts investigated that would indicate who killed Deputy Commissioner Jorge Omar Gutiérrez, who covered-up the crime, and for what reasons. The criminal case began on August 29, 1994, before Criminal and Correctional Court Number 5 of the City of Plata, but to date there has not been a definitive decision establishing what person or persons were responsible for the death of Deputy Commissioner Gutiérrez. 17. The petitioners say that in the court case, the family members of the victim were the main drivers of the investigation. There was virtually no action by the intervening officials in the case. They argue that the summons for the witnesses suggested by the family took too long and “in some cases, the delay resulted in the inability to provide the evidence, as in the case of former commissioner Piazza”, who was the public prosecutor in the lower court and who was killed days before the date he was scheduled to 4 testify. 18. They say that the State is responsible both directly and indirectly for the violation of the right to life of Deputy Commissioner Gutiérrez, both because there are strong indications that those responsible for his death were State agents and because the State failed its duty to both prevent and investigate. As such, they note that when Gutiérrez was in charge of the investigation of serious crimes in which high-ranking public officials were implicated, the State failed to establish any measures to protect his life and physical integrity. 19. They argue that lack of prevention and of a serious investigation into the violation of the right to life of the Deputy Commissioner constitute an independent violation of the right to life, and although there are strong suspicions that fall on two people - agents of the Federal Police (of the surnames Santillán and Mostajo, respectively) - the first was acquitted in 1996. Regarding the second, although he had been identified from the outset by the witnesses, it took the court more than nine years to 5 summon him to appear. 20. They stated that during the procedure for the investigation of the death of Deputy Commissioner Gutiérrez, his family members had established themselves as individual victims and contributed actively to the judicial proceedings, providing information and requesting evidence-gathering measures. 21. As for the delay in the investigations and resolution of the case, the petitioners stated that from the standpoint of criminal law no questions of great legal complexity had been presented or debated in the case. The number of facts and subjects investigated did not justify the delay. They add that during 3 Those two individuals were accused and recognized by witnesses as participants in the incident, and one of them was accused of being the one who fired the shot that killed Mr. Gutiérrez. 4 Comments submitted by the petitioners through a communication received on August 4, 2003. 5 Comments submitted by the petitioners through a communication received on August 4, 2003.