domestic remedies as they apply to this aspect of the petition have been exhausted. 40. Secondly, in its initial presentation the State argued that, with respect to the alleged crimes of falsification on the part of prosecution officials Eamon Mullen and José Barbaccia, the remedies available within domestic jurisdiction had not been exhausted. Subsequently, Argentina admitted that administrative and criminal proceedings against those officials had been dropped. 41. The petitioner maintains that the lack of due diligence in the criminal and administrative investigations against prosecutors who introduced false evidence in the case, together with the fact that federal legislation on criminal procedure did not allow him any remedy against the decision to dismiss the complaint in case 19.756, meant that he was denied effective access to domestic remedies, despite his attempts to have those proceedings continue and thereby give the State the opportunity to complete its investigation and punish those responsible, something that has not occurred to date. 42. The Commission has confirmed that on April 20, 1998, the Second National Federal Criminal and Correctional Court, in case 19.756, "Oral Tribunal of the Federal Criminal Court, public offense," dismissed the complaint brought by the Sixth Oral Tribunal of the Federal Criminal Court of Buenos Aires, relating to the use of false evidence in case 73 on the record of that Court, "Padilla Echeverry, José Gilbardo and others for violation of Law No. 23.737," without going into any examination of the possible liability of the prosecutors Eamon Mullen and José Barbaccia. 43. The IACHR has also verified that, by administrative resolution MP108/99 of September 6, 1999, the National Prosecutor's Office ordered the definitive suspension of administrative proceeding no. 835/98 against the prosecutors Eamon Mullen and José Barbaccia at the instance of the Sixth Oral Tribunal of the Federal Criminal Court of Buenos Aires, relating to the use of false evidence in case 73 on the record of that Court, "Padilla Echeverry, José Gilbardo and others for violation of Law No. 23.737." This was done on the grounds that, because the criminal charges against the prosecution officials named above had been dismissed, there were no grounds for seeking administrative punishment. 44. In the Commission's opinion, the judicial and administrative decisions referred to in the preceding paragraphs, that brought to a close the remedies available within domestic jurisdiction as they related to the alleged responsibility of prosecution officials for the production and use of 9