provided their descriptions. In addition, he stated that he knew both individuals and knew that they acted as police agents; also, in the identification parade of September 24, 1994, he identified the federal police agent indicted. More than four months later, on February 1, 1995, the said witness came forward to testify in the administrative disciplinary procedure that was opened in parallel to the criminal proceedings in the Administrative Investigations Department of the Argentine Federal Police of the Ministry of the Interior. In this statement and before the head of the investigation, the witness changed his statement and indicated that, on being detained by the Police of the province of Buenos Aires, before being taken to the Police Precinct, he was also taken to a “piece of waste ground” where he was questioned, and that, prior to the identification parade, he was shown the federal police agent indicted. 214 111. Subsequently, on November 11, 1996, during the oral public hearing of the oral proceeding before the First Court of the Appeals Chamber, this last statement was read and the witness ratified it “completely.” 215 Approximately three months later, during the investigation of the Special Investigative Commission of the Chamber of Deputies of the National Congress, the said witness testified that he was obliged to change his statements owing to threats from Federal Police agents. 216 In particular, on March 25, 2004, during the criminal proceedings and before the Quilmes Special Investigative Commission, this witness stated that the testimony he had given in the administrative disciplinary proceeding in the Administrative Investigations Department of the Argentine Federal Police of the Ministry of the Interior “was given under threat of death” from Federal Police agents. 217 112. Third, also in the context of the investigation of the Special Investigative Commission of the Chamber of Deputies of the National Congress (supra para. 56), in January and February 1997: (a) the mother-in-law at that time of the federal police agent indicted “acknowledged that she had falsified her testimony in the criminal proceedings because she had been coerced by her former son-in-law,” 218 and (b) two individuals who were minors at the time of the events stated that, owing to ill-treatment and threats by Federal Police agents, they were obliged to testify and to implicate two “boys” in the murder of Assistant Commissioner Gutiérrez. 113. Fourth, once the proceedings had been transferred to Transitional Court No. 2 of the La Plata Judicial Department, the following evidence, inter alia, was received by that court between September and November 2000 with regard to irregularities and obstructions in the investigations into the execution of Mr. Gutiérrez: 214 Cf. Administrative Inquiry File No. 357-18-000001/94. Case: Prosecution of conduct. Administrative Investigations Department of the Argentine Federal Police (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, folio 2275). 215 Cf. Record of the oral proceeding, fs.1253/1261, proceeding 10,888 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, folio 1773). 216 Cf. Copy of the typewritten versions of the statements presented to the Special Investigative Commission of the Chamber of Deputies of the National Congress (file of annexes to the submission brief, folio 151). 217 Cf. Statement of March 25, 2004 before the Special Investigative Commission of Quilmes (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, folio 1917). 218 In addition, the then mother-in-law of the federal police agent indicted made a statement on February 17, 1997, in the Fifth Precinct of the Argentine Federal Police, in which she clarified that she had “always been threatened by the parents [of the federal police agent indicted,] and not by him, because he was in the detention center.” Statement of Claudia Acuña of February 17, 1997, before the Fifth Precinct of the Argentine Federal Police (file of annexes to the submission brief, folios 202 and 203). 43