that while he was at the police station "Wagner comes out and tells us that the police had received a report of a youth in a black jacket disturbing the peace and that as he had been wearing a black jacket they had arrested him [...] We asked what had happened to them, if they had beaten them to which MARCELO said yes they had, that a policeman had thumped him in the face and in the stomach [...] that they had also beaten the bald guy while they were against the wall [...] the boys told us that they had not reported any of this in their statement because they had taken their statement at the police station. I imagine that the same police officers that had beaten them took that statement [...]."95 71. On April 28, 1999, the plaintiffs reiterated their request for evidence to be taken: statements by several witnesses; face-to-face confrontations in court (careos); reconstruction of the facts; the sequestering of the x-rays and photographs of the autopsy performed by Dr. Patito, and the formation of another Medical Board.96 The National Criminal Court of First Instance determined that there were no grounds for admitting the request "[...] as the demands were not considered pertinent or useful in the case of the event investigated."97 72. In a decision on August 5, 1999, the National Criminal and Correction Court of First Instance No. 10 ordered the case to be archived, as it found that no crime had been committed and stated that the death of the alleged victim had been due to the effects of alcohol and drugs, combined with self-inflicted injuries.98 The petitioners filed an appeal against the archiving of the case given that "[...] the evidence brought following the re-opening of the case cast abundant doubt and few certainties as to what really happened [...]." 99 The petitioners also argued that the presence of alcohol and cocaine in the blood of the deceased was not sufficient to argue that the police had not beaten José Delfín Acosta. Nor had the lawfulness of his arrest been determined.100 73. On September 17, 1999, the National Criminal and Correctional Court of Appeals issued a onepage resolution confirming the archiving of the case: The fact is the statement that the facts investigated did not constitute a crime cannot be revised after added information without impairing the benefits established of ne bus in idem. [...] In any case, the arguments adduced by the judge of the court of first instance appear to be impeccable and based on a thorough weighing of all the evidence [...].101 74. On October 12, 1999, the plaintiffs filled an appeal for annulment of judgment (recurso de casación),102 which was not admitted.103 They then filed a remedy of complaint against that decision, arguing that the main reason for the prior appeals had not been to contradict judgment, but because evidence had not been submitted to resolve contradictions between witnesses' testimony 104; which remedy was denied. The extraordinary appeal105 was turned down on March 7, 2000.106 On March 23, 2000, the plaintiffs filed an appeal to the Supreme Court of Justice, arguing that if a party submits evidence belying the statement of a witness, it Appendix 52. Statement by Andrés Alberto Fresco on September 2, 1998. Attached to the initial petition. Appendix 55. Writ by the plaintiffs, April 28, 1999. Attached to the initial petition. 97 Appendix 56. Verdict by the National Criminal Court of First Instance No. 10 on May 12, 1999. Attached to the initial petition. 98 Appendix 57. Tenth National Court of First Instance. Resolution of August 5, 1999. "That, on the day of the facts of the case, in the early hours of April 5, 1996, José Delfín Acosta had ingested large quantities of alcohol and of the drug cocaine, in particular, which had produced a state of mental excitement and aggressiveness, combined with convulsions that led to his death." Attached to the initial petition. 99 Appendix 58. Appeal filed on August 23, 1999. Attached to the initial petition. 100 Appendix 58. Appeal filed on August 23, 1999. Attached to the initial petition. 101 Appendix 59. Resolution of the National Court of Appeals on September 17, 1999. Attached to the initial petition. 102 Appendix 60. Appeal for annulment of judgment of October 12, 1999. Attached to the initial petition. 103 Appendix 61. Resolution of the National Court of Appeals on Thursday, October 21, 1999. “The challenge brought by the private plaintiff refers in its entirety to the body of evidence in the case, how it was assessed, and the conclusion reached after the examination of said evidence. Such disagreement with the judge's conclusion is insufficient grounds for filing the attempted procedural remedy [...]." Attached to the initial petition. 104 Appendix 62. Remedy of complaint filed on October 28, 1999. Attached to the initial petition. 105 Appendix 64. Extraordinary appeal filed by the plaintiffs on February 3, 2000. Attached to the initial petition. 106 Appendix 65. Statement of inadmissibility of the extraordinary appeal, March 7, 2000. Attached to the initial petition. 95 96