obstruction of the administration of justice, such as the alteration and suppression of evidence, the diligence with which the State must act in the investigation increases”260. 278. The Commission observes that both the facts related to the section that had as procedural object the payment to Telleldín with SIDE reserved funds and the one related to the failure to adequately explore the socalled “Syrian-Kanoore Edul lead”, are fundamentally supported in evidence that was present from the very onset of the investigations, in such a way that they were not particularly complex. 279. Regarding the payment to Telleldín, the related facts had been subject to judicial verification based on the evidence produced during the oral trial held before TOF 3, whose judgment was delivered in October 2004. Likewise, TOF 3 had accredited the same sequence of events that culminated with Telleldín's additional statement of July 5, 1996, upon which the only consolidated line of investigation was the hypothesis that upheld the responsibility of certain police officers of Buenos Aires in exchange of the payment made by SIDE officials. The Commission notes that the indictment dated September 19, 2006 issued against the former judge Galeano and the former prosecutors in the case, among other defendants, was based, to a large extent, on the assessment of pre-constituted evidence both during the instruction stage for the attack on the AMIA and during the oral debate held before the TOF 3261. 280. Regarding the investigation into the failure to explore the Syrian-Kannore Edul lead, similarly, a large part of the evidence evaluated by TOF 2 in its judgment of May 2019 was available to the judicial bodies since the very beginnings of the investigatory phase. Both from the reading of the order initiating oral proceedings dated March 30, 2012 and the TOF judgment of May 2, 2019, it is clear that the verification of the facts related to the deliberate abandonment of the so-called Syrian lead did not require the carrying out a profuse judicial activity, since the main elements of evidence were already present since the investigation into the attack and the only thing left to do was to carry out a legal analysis of the facts. For example, at least since 2001, it was already known that the tapes with the recordings of the wiretapping of individuals linked to persons of interest to the investigation were lost. 281. In effect, this circumstance came to light when these elements were requested from Galeano’s court by TOF 3 for the oral debate that was held before said court262. Additionally, and as stated in TOF 2, the breach of the judicial order to search the homes on Constitución Street linked to Mr. Kanoore Edul, was a fact that had already been known since August 1994, when the commissioner in charge of the operation returned without completing the search warrant at 2633 Constitución Street263. 282. Despite the foregoing, the Commission observes that the behavior of the authorities has been characterized by incurring in a series of delays that have prolonged the course of this investigation. 283. In the investigation carried out with respect to the segment related to the payment to Telleldín, the procedure that the judicial appellate bodies applied to the appeals presented by the defendants' defenses caused a considerable delay in the process. The most tangible consequence of this delay is that it was not until 2015 that the oral debate hearings began, that is, more than 15 years after the filing of the complaint that gave rise to the investigation into the cover-up264. The Commission also observes as particularly problematic the circumstances surrounding the proceedings of the cassation appeal presented by the defense of former judge Galeano against the decision of the “ad hoc” Chamber I of the National Chamber of Federal Criminal and Correctional Appeals, which confirmed the indictment issued by the investigating judge dated September 19, 2006. Although the appeal was filed before the courts of the Chamber of Cassation on October 31, 2007, the I/A Court H.R., Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (The Disappeared from the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 14, 2014. Series C No. 287, para. 499. 261 Annex 14. Indictment issued by the Federal Criminal Investigation Court No. 4 dated September 19, 2006. Annex 5 to the petitioner's communication dated October 31, 2014. 262 Annex 12. Judgment of the Federal Oral Criminal Court No. 2. Pages 533 to 534. Annex 2 to the petitioner's communication dated November 11, 2019. 263 Annex 12. Judgment of the Federal Oral Criminal Court No. 2. Page 375. Annex 2 to the petitioner's communication dated November 11, 2019. 264 Petitioner's communication dated November 11, 2019, pages 46 to 50. 260 54