the evidence that was intended to clarify the responsibility of Kanoore Edul in the attack, a situation that meant the loss of evidence that needed to be immediately produced and difficult to carry out with the passing time, which made it difficult to find out the truth”169. - Commission’s Considerations 184. The Commission observes that the judgment handed down by the Federal Oral Criminal Court No. 2 that convicted various judicial officials in charge of the investigation conducted by the Federal Criminal Investigation Court 9 for the crimes of concealment, embezzlement, and failure to comply with the duties of a public official, highlights the execution out of cover-up maneuvers aimed at deliberately interrupting any progress in the line of investigation known as the “Syrian / Kanoore Edul lead”. 185. Pursuant to the judgment of the TOF 2 itself, the Commission notes that the State agents in charge of directing and promoting the investigation into the AMIA attack neglected to execute and sustain various procedural steps that, if carried out in a timely manner, could have been useful to clarify the fact or, at least, to learn more about the degree of plausibility of the so-called "Syrian lead". These omissions are even more problematic if the provisions of the TOF 2 are taken into account regarding the solidity of this line of investigation during the first days of the judicial investigation 170. 186. Among the main omissions incurred by the officials, it is worth mentioning the failed raid on the property on 2633 Constitución Street and, secondly, the interruption of the measures to intercept the telephone communications of persons of interest to the investigation, with no prior analysis of the content of those communications already captured. 187. Regarding the principle of exhaustiveness in investigations of human rights violations, the Commission considers it appropriate to recall that the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court is abundant in what has to do with the international responsibility of the State for not ordering, practicing, or evaluating evidence that may be essential for the due clarification of the facts. The Inter-American Court pointed out, in this same sense, that the investigation must be aimed at exploring all possible lines of investigation that allow the identification of the perpetrators of the crime, their subsequent prosecution and punishment 171. 188. In view of the foregoing, and in the absence of compliance with the procedures identified by TOF 2, the Commission observes that state officials refrained from continuing to deepen and develop an essential logical line for the development of the investigation. In this regard, the Commission considers that the State did not comply with the serious and exhaustive investigation of the facts in order to obtain the truth about the facts. iii) Actions taken by the Investigating Judge No. 9 in relation to the accused Carlos Telleldín 189. During the period of time that elapsed between July 1994 and mid-1996, Carlos Telleldín was the only person detained, brought before judicial authorities, and charged of having had some degree of participation in the attack172. During the investigation, it was revealed that said defendant had a series of informal meetings with various authorities and that he received a sum of money from the SIDE in exchange for issuing a statement that implicated some police officers in the events. The relevant facts in relation to these aspects are described below and the Commission will make its respective considerations. Annex 12. Judgment of the Federal Oral Criminal Court No. 2 dated May 3, 2019, p. 412. Annex 2 to the petitioner’s communication dated November 11, 2019. 170 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. 171 I/A Court H.R., Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 230; I/A Court H.R., Case of J. v. Peru. Interpretation of the Judgment on Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No. 291, para. 344, quoting I/A Court H.R., Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 128. See also IACHR. Report No. 33/16, Case of 12.797. Merits. Linda Loaiza López Soto and family. Venezuela. July 29, 2016. 172 See infra paras. 61 and 62 169 37