9. The petitioner sent the Commission additional information on September 14, 1995; the Commission acknowledged receipt of this and forwarded it to the State on October 11. The State replied on December 7, and notice of this was given to the petitioner on December 13. The petitioner sent the Commission a communication on December 21 to inquire about the State’s reply. 10. On January 19, 1996, and then on February 8 and August 23, the petitioner sent the Commission additional information; acknowledgement of these submissions was given on February 8, February 21, and October 9. 11. Then, on October 1, 1996, the State sent the Commission updated information on the legal proceedings related to this case; acknowledgement of this was given and it was forwarded to the petitioner on October 24. 12. The Commission received a further communication from the petitioner on December 5; acknowledgement of this was given and it was forwarded to the State on December 19. 13. On March 6, 1998, the Commission received a letter from the petitioner reporting new allegations of victimization. Acknowledgement that this communication was received was sent on March 18. 14. On June 29, 1999, the Commission asked the petitioner for additional information, which he sent on July 23. On August 11, the State was sent the petitioner’s allegations, giving it a period of 30 days in which to reply. III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A The petitioner a. Regarding the facts 15. The petitioner initiated a real-estate sales transaction with Norma Lage and Jorge Denegri, which was not finalized. He filed a complaint against the two of them for fraud and threats in January 1988. In turn, on February 22, Norma Lage filed a complaint against the petitioner and another individual, alleging fraud and extortion, with which criminal proceedings N 24519 began. The petitioner states that on the following March 20, he and the other parties to the transaction agreed to cancel the transaction. However, on April 5, the petitioner and his attorney were arrested, the attorney’s professional office was searched, and the recording of the cancellation meeting was seized. This series of actions was carried out by officers of the Fraud Division of the Argentine Federal Police, acting on a court order issued as a part of criminal proceedings N 24519. 16. He claims he was tortured at the facilities of the police on April 6, 1988, to coerce him into making a statement against his attorney,1 a fact which he reported to the judge in charge of the case. “The injuries described in the complaint were duly recorded in the medical report.” He claims that the torture he suffered resulted in “perforation of the eardrum caused by direct trauma to the right ear, [...] from which injuries I suffer permanent aftereffects, with the weakening of one organ and two senses: my hearing, and my balance.” 1 The petitioner argues that the alleged animosity of the police was because his attorney, Carlos A. Pez Galindo, had previously defended a former police officer in a notorious criminal case in which, he claims, other officers from the Federal Police’s Fraud Division were involved. 2