this essential procedure. This is the case if it is noted -coinciding with the way TOF 3 did in its judgment of October 2004- that the informal stay of state agents at the home of the then only defendant for the attack for almost two days, without said agents immediately securing those elements that could be of interest to the investigation, generated reasonable doubts regarding the integrity of the evidence collected in the subsequent raid carried out in that property. Indeed, there is a lack of due diligence when documentary evidence of importance for the determination of the facts is not collected or effectively preserved, as this can directly affect the success of the investigations154. 174. In light of the above, the Commission observes that the State did not comply with the due diligence required in the initial proceedings. As will be indicated later, the omissions made at this stage have had a severe impact on the development of the investigation. ii) Regarding the so-called “Syrian / Kanoore Edul lead” 175. Among the lines of investigation opened during the first days of the attack is the one known as the “Syrian / Kanoore Edul lead”. Its origin has to do with the verification, made from the analysis of the record of incoming and outgoing calls from the telephone line installed at Carlos Telleldín's home, that on July 10, 1994 he received a call from a line belonging to a company owned by a man named Alberto Jacinto Kanoore Edul. The judicial investigation also verified that, on July 9 and 10, 1994, that is 8 days before the attack, Carlos Telleldín had published a classified ad in a newspaper offering for sale a Renault Trafic van155. 176. Likewise, and according to the judgement of the Federal Oral Criminal Court No. 2 (TOF 2) of May 2019, on the same day of the attack, the investigators had already verified that, a few minutes before the explosion, "An employee of the company Cascotera Santa Rita, whose owner was Nassib Haddad, deposited a tipper truck in front of the AMIA-DAIA headquarters and moved another tipper truck that was stationed there to the address located at 2657 Constitución Street” 156 .The domicile of the Kanoore Edul company was located at 2695 Constitución Street, that is, in the same block where the Cascotera Santa Rita dump truck was deposited. 177. Taking both data into account, TOF 2 concluded that, towards the end of July 1994, it was “evident the seriousness and consequent need and importance of deepening the hypothesis regarding the intervention of Alberto Jacinto Kanoore Edul in the attack, since at that moment it constituted the most solid and concrete line of investigation that the process presented”157 Consequently, Judge Galeano ordered the phone tapping with direct monitoring of a series of phonelines linked to Kanoore Edul and ordered the Federal Police to proceed to raid the address of 2695 Constitución Street and two others located at 2633 Constitución Street and 2745 Constitución Street158. 178. With respect to the raids, TOF 2 found that “they were not carried out simultaneously, but successively”159 and that this “conspired against the greater success of the measure since it could have allowed the occupants of the second property, being advised of the previous raid, to discard elements of interest to the investigation”160. Likewise, the Court also verified that the police officers failed to carry out the raid of the building at 2633 Constitución Street and did not give valid reasons to act in this way. Former judge Galeano, as See, among others: I/A Court H.R., Case of Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2006. Series C No. 149, para. 189; I/A Court H.R., Case of García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 168, paras. 112 and 113; I/A Court H.R., Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, paras. 173 and 174. 155 Annex 2. Judgment of the TOF 3. Chapter X.B, p. 3846. Annex 1 to the petitioner’s communication dated November 11, 2019. 156 Annex 12. Judgment of the Federal Oral Criminal Court No. 2 dated May 3, 2019, p. 345. Annex 2 to the petitioner’s communication dated November 11, 2019. 157 Annex 12. Judgment of the Federal Oral Criminal Court No. 2 dated May 3, 2019, p. 354. Annex 2 to the petitioner’s communication dated November 11, 2019. 158 Annex 12. Judgment of the Federal Oral Criminal Court No. 2 dated May 3, 2019, p. 335. Annex 2 to the petitioner’s communication dated November 11, 2019. 159 Annex 12. Judgment of the Federal Oral Criminal Court No. 2 dated May 3, 2019, p. 373. Annex 2 to the petitioner’s communication dated November 11, 2019. 160 Annex 12. Judgment of the Federal Oral Criminal Court No. 2 dated May 3, 2019, p. 374. Annex 2 to the petitioner’s communication dated November 11, 2019. 154 35