- - 1. In all cases, investigators must be genuinely impartial and must not harbour preconceptions about the matter they are investigating or the identity of those responsible for any fatalities. Nor should they approach the investigation in a way that might promote or protect the interests of any public official who may be at fault. They should be demonstrably free of undue influence. If the investigation leads to criminal or other judicial proceedings, there must be a possibility for the effective participation of the next-of-kin Regarding the due diligence in the investigations followed in this case 157. Next, the Commission will analyze whether the Argentine State complied with diligently investigating the facts related to the attack on the AMIA headquarters. Taking into account what is indicated in the global determinations of facts, the Commission will pronounce itself in the following order: a) on the investigation conducted by the Federal Criminal and Correctional Court No. 9; b) on the investigation delegated by the Federal Criminal and Correctional Court No. 6 in the Prosecution Unit for the Investigation of the Attack on the AMIA Headquarters; and c) on the investigation into the cover-up of the attack. a. Investigation conducted by the Federal Criminal and Correctional Court No.9 158. The Commission will dedicate this section to presenting those events that occurred in the framework of the investigation headed by the Federal Criminal and Correctional Court No. 9 that are relevant for analyzing state responsibility. i) Initial proceedings at the crime scene and raids carried out by the State Intelligence Secretary 159. The TOF 3 indicated in its judgment of October 29, 2004 that, during the first hours of the attack, the area of the disaster was “invaded by countless people not assigned to the security and rescue forces, mobilized, in in some cases, due to the eager search for their family or friends and, in others, due to the sole desire to provide solidarity or even out of mere curiosity”134. 160. Chamber II of the Criminal Cassation Chamber in its judgment of May 19, 2006 also took up this point and assured that “the officials intervening immediately after the explosion failed to establish a security fence in order to control and order the safe entry, exit, and transfer of people and objects from the scene”135. Likewise, the court assured that the search, gathering, and preservation of evidence at the scene of the incident “was seriously affected by the lack of a coordinated plan aimed at […] ensuring both the integrity and the reliability of the elements […] that could be of interest for the investigation of the event”136. 161. On the other hand, and in what has to do specifically with the discovery of remains of an engine of a Trafic vehicle among the rubble, the TOF 3 declared the nullity of the seizure act dated July 25, 1994 drawn up by members of the Firefighters Superintendency of the Argentine Federal Police, since "the versions offered by those who signed the act in question allow to conclude, without effort, that the circumstances recorded in it do not reflect, in any way, what really happened”137. 162. In effect, TOF 3 indicated that the police officers who were at the scene of the incident on July 25, participated in the discovery of the remains of the engine and drew up the seizure report, incurred an “inadmissible omission [... ] since nothing was done to establish how and where it occurred or to identify the Annex 2. Judgment of the TOF 3. Chapter V.B “Nullities”, p. 2696. Annex 1 to the petitioner’s communication dated November 11, 2019. Annex 3. Judgment of Chamber II of the National Chamber of Criminal Cassation dated May 19, 2006, p. 271. Annex 7 to the petitioner's communication dated November 11, 2019. 136 Annex 3. Judgment of Chamber II of the National Chamber of Criminal Cassation dated May 19, 2006, p. 277. Annex 7 to the petitioner's communication dated November 11, 2019. 137 Annex 2. Judgment of the TOF 3. Chapter V.B “Nullities”, p. 2670. Annex 1 to the petitioner’s communication dated November 11, 2019. For a the full statement of the various testimonies provided by those who signed the seizure act, see: Annex 2. Judgment of the TOF 3. Chapter V.B “Nullities”, pp. 2650-2672. Annex 1 to the petitioner’s communication dated November 11, 2019. 134 135 32