217. Added to this, and in a particularly serious manner, the Commission has verified that during the investigatory phase of the attack there was a deviation from the rational rules that should govern any criminal investigation. Indeed, the judges who acted during said stage -in coordination with other state actors- carried out activities outside the law with the purpose of constructing and deepening an accusatory hypothesis without factual support. These actions deliberately favored the cover-up of those truly responsible for the attack, decisively impaired the right of the victims and Argentine society to know the truth of what happened, and largely explain the state of impunity in which currently the case is found. 218. In this sense, the Commission finds that the aforementioned state action not only violated the principle of due diligence that should govern judicial investigations for serious human rights violations, but also constitutes a deliberate concealment of the historical truth and the denial of the state obligation to clarify and punish such facts210. 219. Consequently, the Commission concludes that the Argentine State is responsible for the violation of the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection enshrined in Articles 8.1 and 25 of the American Convention, respectively, in relation to Article 1.1. of the same instrument to the detriment of the victims of the case. b. Investigation delegated by the Federal Criminal and Correctional Court No. 6 to the Prosecution Unit for the Investigation of the Attack on the AMIA Headquarters 220. Considering that, in accordance with the provisions of the previous section, the investigation was hampered as a result of the State's own action, the Commission considers that there is a heightened obligation for the Argentine State to investigate these facts and from which a double responsibility derives. First, to seriously undertake a diligent investigation into the AMIA attack in order to clarify what happened and punish those responsible. Second, that of investigating with due diligence, correcting the effects generated and, where appropriate, punishing those responsible for all the shortcomings and irregularities produced in the investigation into the attack that, due to their effects, have become factors of impunity attributable to the actions of its own agents. 221. In this section, the Commission will analyze the State's compliance with due diligence standards with respect to the investigation conducted from February 2005 to the present day by the Prosecution Unit for the Investigation of the Attack on the AMIA Headquarters (UFI-AMIA). In a later section, the Commission will rule on the investigations and processes followed in relation to possible irregularities and shortcomings in the investigation itself. 222. On December 3, 2003, the Court of Appeals decided to remove the then Judge Juan José Galeano from hearing the section of the investigation for the attack that was still under his responsibility and from all those that were related to it211. 223. Consequently, the judicial investigation was assigned to the Federal Court No. 6 under Judge Rodolfo Canicoba Corral. In February 2005, and after the TOF 3 ruling that declared the accusation that implicated the Buenos Aires police as part of the local connection to the attack null and void, Judge Canicoba Corral delegated the investigatory phase of the entire investigation of the AMIA case to the UFI AMIA, a dependency that had been created shortly before by the Attorney General of the Nation. The UFI AMIA was at first led by prosecutors Alberto Nisman and Marcelo Martinez Burgos and then was exclusively led by Nisman until the day of his death, on January 18, 2015. From then on and to date, the UFI AMIA is headed by a collegiate team of prosecutors212. IACHR, Report No. 22/15, Case 12.792. Merits. María Luisa Acosta and others. Nicaragua. March 26, 2015. Para. 92. Annex 2. Judgment of the TOF 3. Chapter VIII.B. Pages 2974 and 2995. Annex 1 to the petitioner’s communication dated November 11, 2019. 212 See in this regard: Annex 11. UFI AMIA Management Report July 2016. Introduction. Annex 13 to the petitioner’s communication dated November 11, 2019. 210 211 43