contaminated by the case" and the creation of a Specialized Unit of the Office of the Public Prosecutor to exhaustively investigate the case. 136 125. In addition, although neither the Commission nor the State submitted evidence on this, the Court notes that they both indicated that on May 26, 2004, the governor of the Province of Chubut and the State Prosecutor brought a request for a "jury trial" before the Council of Magistrates in that province against Examining Judge No. 2. Moreover, the State noted that the Superior Tribunal of Justice of the Province of Chubut decided to submit to the Council of Magistrates the case file of said judge, due to the “alleged” poor performance of duties, qualified as a formal complaint. According to what the Commission has indicated, that Judge was accused of, among other things, poor performance of his duties on having for quite some time entrusted the investigation of the facts that took place with regard to Mr. Torres to the personnel of the First Precinct. He was also accused of causing the delay in the resolution of the court cases. According to that noted by the State, prior to the requests for the respective political trial, the judge presented his resignation, which was accepted by the Council of Magistrates. 126. The reports of the Secretariat on Human Rights of the Nation was used by the State Prosecutor of Province of Chubut on July 6, 2004, to set up a special unit to investigate the enforced disappearance of Mr. Torres Millacura. The State Prosecutor instructed that special unit to be assigned case 1138/03 in proceedings before Examining Judge No. 2, among others. 137 Following that assignment, the investigation was largely directed by the Special Unit. B.2. Actions taken by the federal authorities. 127. As a result of the motion to contest provincial jurisdiction in favor of federal jurisdiction filed on September 16, 2004, by Mrs. Millacura Llaipén, 138 in 2007, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation ruled that "taking as a basis that the fact of the proceeding is considered in the context of the crime of enforced disappearance of persons provided for in the Inter-American Convention [on Forced Disappearance of Persons], incorporated by law […] into the National Constitution,” federal courts have jurisdiction over the investigation into what happened to Iván Eladio Torres Millacura.139 As a consequence, the action was moved before a federal judge in the city of Comodoro Rivadavia, Province of Chubut, given case file 7020, titled “Millacura Llaipén, María Leontina s/ Dcia. Desaparición Forzada de Persona.” 128. On October 15, 2007, the Federal Judge issued an interlocutory judgment concluding that there was not sufficient evidence to allow the absence of Iván Eladio Torres Millacura to be classified as an enforced disappearance of persons. The judge ordered two of the agents to be processed while released on their own recognizance for the crime of illegal deprivation of liberty. The judge also ordered one more to be processed for the crime of intrusion into the home in relation to one of the detentions to which Iván Eladio Torres Millacura was allegedly the subject of in September 2003. However, the processing of all of the agents for both enforced disappearance and for 136 Cf. Memory Aid on the Investigation of the case of Iván Eladio Torres on July 1, 2004, (case file of annexes to the application, tome I, folios 231 and 232). 137 Cf. Resolution 47/04 of the Attorney General of the Province of Chubut, July 6, 2004 (case file of annexes to the brief of pleadings and motions, tome of footnotes to the brief of pleadings and motions, folios 17827 to 17828). 138 Cf. brief of María Leontina Millacura Llaipén of September 16, 2004 (case file of annexes to the application, tome XI, folios 8647 to 8662). 139 Cf. Judgment ordered by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation of March 13, 2007 (case file of annexes to the answer to the application, annex 1, body XVII, folio 21028). 40