23. With respect to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the petitioners indicate that when Mr. Iván Eladio Torres failed to appear by midday on October 3, 2003, his mother called the First Police Station to find out what had happened to him and they did not give her an answer. Mrs. Millacura Llaipen claims that she tried report the situation to the First Police Station on October 4, 6, and 8, but they refused to take a written statement from her. The report was finally taken on October 14, 2003, leading to the opening of a case of disappearance before the Second Court of Instruction in Comodoro Rivadavia, entitled, “Millacura Llaipen, Maria Leontina s/Dcia. Psta. Disappearance Persons C. Rivadavia 2003”. 24. The petitioners claim that the complaint was set aside by the public prosecutor five months after it was filed. They add that all the reports contained in the present investigation indicate that Mr. Iván Eladio Torres “was not delayed or detained on October 2, under a warrant issued by a court or police authority.” On November 5, 2003 a request was made to expand on the information so that detention centers could respond as to whether Iván Torres was delayed or detained on October 2, without a warrant from the jurisdictional authority, and this request was denied on November 12, 2003, by the investigating judge in the case. 25. On October 27, 2003, Mrs. Valeria Torres, sister of Mr. Iván Eladio Torres, filed a writ of habeas corpus with the Second Court of Instruction of Comodoro Rivadavia to establish the whereabouts of Mr. Iván Eladio Torres, and the case of “Torres, Valeria s/ habeas corpus” File N°1139/03 was opened. On that date, the first on-site inspection of the First Police Station was conducted. 26. On November 5, 2003 Mrs. Maria Millacura Llaipen filed an action in the case of disappearance requesting that the file name be changed to “Forced disappearance of a person.”7 The petitioners claim that a resolution of the Superior Court of Justice of Chubut Province states that the forced disappearance of a person is a matter of federal jurisdiction and they allege that an opinion issued by the Federal Prosecutor of Comodoro Rivadavia maintains that the offense of forced disappearance of persons does not exist in Argentine law. 27. The petitioners denounced before the IACHR irregularities in the investigation into the disappearance of Mr. Iván Eladio Torres. They point out that “the preliminary investigation was carried out by the First Police Station accused in the case up until October 23, 2003, with the knowledge and consent of the Second Investigating Judge. The SS never formally took over the preliminary investigation of the case. The Public Prosecutor’s Office did not become involved until November 5, 2003 […] more than a 8 month after the disappearance of Iván Eladio Torres” Mrs. Millacura Llaipen denounced this, seriously calling into question the behavior of the Second Investigating Judge in charge of the case as well as other judges in similar cases, and succeeded in having a complaint brought before the Judicial Council [Consejo de la Magistratura] by means of Special Agreement [Acuerdo Extraordinario] No. 3382 of the Superior Court of Justice of Chubut, as well as an order for administrative proceedings against the other judges. The Judicial Council ruled, in Act No 133, to proceed with the impeachment of the Investigating Judge. The petitioners allege that the judge was never separated from the case. 7 Original petition received by the IACHR on November 14, 2003. 8 Ibid.