prepared by Francisco Virgilio Gutiérrez, 26 Nilda Elena Gutiérrez, 27 Jorge Gabriel Gutiérrez, Omar David Gutiérrez 28 and Marilin Verónica Gutiérrez. 29 It also received the opinions of expert witnesses Alejandro Rúa, 30 Gabriel Eduardo Pérez Barberá, 31 Luis María Chichizola 32 and Ricardo Favarotto. 33 In addition, during the public hearing, the Court received the testimony of Nilda del Valle Maldonado de Gutiérrez 34 and the opinion of expert witness Alberto Binder. 35 26 The victim Francisco Virgilio Gutiérrez testified on “his supposed relationship with his brother at the time of his murder; the steps presumably taken in order to collaborate with justice in the clarification of the act, and his role as a national deputy or Mayor of Quilmes; about how he experienced the friendly settlement procedure, and the supposed reprisals and threats of which he and his family were victims owing to their commitment to obtain justice for the supposed murder of his brother.” Cf. Case of Gutiérrez and family v. Argentina. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 20, 2012, operative paragraph 1.A.2. 27 The victim Nilda Elena Gutiérrez testified on “her supposed relationship with her brother and the life of the Gutiérrez family before his presumed murder. She also testified[d] on the supposed consequences of this event and of the presumed impunity on the physical and mental health of her parents and the relationship with them; about the steps taken by herself and the family; the effect that the actions of the police, prosecution and judicial authorities supposedly had on her values and on those of her family, and also on the consequences that the alleged impunity of the facts had, and continue to have, on her life.” Cf. Case of Gutiérrez and family v. Argentina. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 20, 2012, operative paragraph 1.A.1. 28 The victims Jorge Gabriel and Omar David Gutiérrez testified on “their life at the time of the supposed murder of their father and the presumed repercussions on their personal and professional life projects; about the steps that they and their family members took to learn the truth of what happened, the supposed consequences of the alleged acts of concealment and obstruction by the police, prosecution and judicial authorities on their life, and on the presumed consequences that the alleged impunity of the facts had, and continue to have, on their life.” Cf. Case of Gutiérrez and family v. Argentina. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 20, 2012, operative paragraph 1.A.3. 29 The victim Marilin Verónica Gutiérrez testified on “her life at the time of the supposed murder of her father and the supposed consequences on the life of the family; the steps she took and what it supposedly involved to live, since adolescence, with the presumed impunity of the facts, and regarding the supposed obstacles faced by her and her family in the search for justice.” Cf. Case of Gutiérrez and family v. Argentina. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 20, 2012, operative paragraph 1.A.4. 30 Expert witness Alejandro Rúa provided an opinion on “the judicial and administrative actions in this case and whether or not they were adequate; about how the administrative actions of the Argentine Federal Police and of the Police of the province of Buenos Aires concerning the supposed murder of Jorge Omar Gutiérrez were conducted, and about the institutional measures that should be taken to rectify the supposed conditions that made these events possible; their presumed corporate concealment and the presumed administrative impunity.” Cf. Case of Gutiérrez and family v. Argentina. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 20, 2012, operative paragraph 1.B.5. 31 Expert witness Gabriel Eduardo Pérez Barberá provided an opinion on “the need for the criminal justice system to have criminal investigation units that are autonomous from the police, especially in those cases that involve law enforcement personnel.” Cf. Case of Gutiérrez and family v. Argentina. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 20, 2012, operative paragraph 1.B.4. 32 Expert witness Luis María Chichizola provided an opinion on “the structure and functioning of the Public Prosecution Service of the province of Buenos Aires; the supposed flaws in the judicial investigation, and how justice could be improved in this province for this type of case, particularly in relation to the Public Prosecution Service.” Cf. Case of Gutiérrez and family v. Argentina. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 20, 2012, operative paragraph 1.B.6. 33 Expert witness Ricardo Favorotto provided an opinion on “the supposed shortcomings in the judicial actions in this case; which of these problems supposedly constitute actual structural deficiencies, and about the institutional measures to overcome them.” Cf. Case of Gutiérrez and family v. Argentina. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of December 20, 2012, operative paragraph 1.B.3. Also, on March 26, 2013, the representatives advised the Court of their decision to withdraw the presentation of the expert opinions of María Victoria Pita, Lila Caimari, Julián Axat and Ignacio Cano, opportunely offered and accepted to be provided by affidavit in the Order of the President of December 20, 2012, in this case (supra para. 8). 34 Nilda del Valle Maldonado de Gutiérrez, wife of Jorge Omar Gutiérrez, testified on “her life at the time her husband was supposedly murdered; the steps that she and her family took to learn the truth of what happened; the actions of the police, prosecution and judicial authorities; the alleged obstacles faced by her family in their search for justice, and the supposed impact on her life and on that of her family of the death of her husband and 15