48. On November 15, 1996 the First Chamber of the Appeals Chamber delivered its verdict 72 and judgment, 73 in which it “freely acquitted” the federal police agent indicted in the case for the crime of murder of which he had been accused, “because the charges had not been proved,” since there was “an insurmountable situation of doubt that must be decided in favor of the accused.” The following considerations, among others, were made in the acquittal verdict: (a) that it had not been proved that the accused had any reason to kill Assistant Commissioner Gutiérrez; (b) that the identification parades appeared to have “been tainted by pointers,” because the male and female eyewitnesses had indicated that they had “made identifications in the absence of the parade of individuals and before the legal procedure”; (c) the testimony of the male eyewitness was rejected because, among other matters, he had indicated that “he had not seen the perpetrator’s face”; (d) that the female eyewitness had allegedly “contradicted herself” and made assertions that “weaken[ed] her testimony,” and (e) the testimony of the then companion of the indicted federal police agent and her mother were taken into consideration. In addition, a judge who was a member of the Chamber, made a general reference to “the existence of investigative errors” in the case. 74 Thus, the First Chamber ordered the immediate release of the federal police agent indicted and returned the case file to the original court so that it could continue the investigation. 75 It also decided, among other matters, that the statements of some of the witnesses must be forwarded to the sitting Criminal and Correctional Court, “so that it [could] investigate the possible irregularities committed in the proceedings […].” 76 49. The evidence provided to this Court reveals that an investigation committee was created in the Directorate of Highly Complex Criminal Investigations of the Police of the province of Buenos Aires that investigated the death of Mr. Gutiérrez. 77 A.3. Remedies filed after the oral proceeding 50. The lawyer of the injured party, Nilda del Valle Maldonado, filed a special appeals on unconstitutionality based on nullity, and on the inapplicability of law or legal doctrine against the judgment of November 15, 1996 (supra para. 48). 78 On December 20, 1996, the First Chamber of the Appeals Chamber decided “[n]ot to admit the appeals,” because “the injured party was not entitled to file special appeals before the Supreme Court of Justice of the province.” 79 Consequently, the injured party’s lawyer filed a remedy of 72 Cf. Verdict of November 15, 1996, delivered by the First Court of the Criminal and Correctional Appeals Chamber of La Plata (file of annexes to the submission brief, folios 123 to 136). 73 Cf. Judgment of November 15, 1996, delivered by the First Court of the Criminal and Correctional Appeals Chamber of La Plata (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, folios 1784 to 1788). 74 Cf. Verdict of November 15, 1996, delivered by the First Court of the Criminal and Correctional Appeals Chamber of La Plata (file of annexes to the submission brief, folios 123 to 136). 75 Cf. Judgment of November 15, 1996, delivered by the First Court of the Criminal and Correctional Appeals Chamber of La Plata (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, folios 1785 and 1788). 76 Cf. Judgment of November 15, 1996, delivered by the First Court of the Criminal and Correctional Appeals Chamber of La Plata (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, folios 1784 to 1788). 77 Cf. Statement of October 11, 2000, before the Second Transition Court of the La Plata Judicial Department (file of annexes to the submission brief, folio 225), and Statement of April 4, 2005, before judicial investigators of the Judicial Police Investigators Unit of the Office of the Prosecutor General of the Supreme Court of Justice of Buenos Aires (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, folio 1961). 78 Cf. Brief filing special appeals on unconstitutionality based on nullity, and on the inapplicability of law or legal doctrine (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, folio 2042). 79 Cf. Decision of December 20, 1996, issued by the First Court of the Criminal and Correctional Appeals Chamber of La Plata (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, folios 1790 and 1791). 21