incidents between the victim […] and the private guards of the large warehouse that abutted [the Avellaneda Second Police Precinct],” underscoring that these guards were agents and former agents of the Argentine Federal Police. 181 He also affirmed that: (i) on the night of the murder, the relief of Assistant Commissioner Gutiérrez had arrived hours later than normal, saying that he had been at a wedding that, “in fact, never existed”; (ii) the night of the murder, the driver of the police car that drove Mr. Gutiérrez decided to take him to the Avellaneda train station, even though he had asked to be taken to his home; (iii) several statements made by Federal Police officials and agents had prolonged the deliberate falsification of information on the functions usually performed by the accused federal police agent on board the trains, and (iv) he had found some falsifications of “times, which are significant,” in the logbook of the Avellaneda Second Police Precinct. 182 88. Sixth, during the same criminal proceeding, on October 24, 2000, and on September 24, 2003, a witness who was detained testified that the order to murder Assistant Commissioner Gutiérrez had been given by “the person who, at that time, was the Police Commissioner and Inspector for the province of Buenos Aires, and the motive was because […] he was being investigated […] in relation to drugs and, at that time, he was one of leaders of the group that was trafficking” (supra paras. 62 and 65). In this regard, he explained that the said group was composed of several police agents of the province of Buenos Aires and of the Argentine Federal Police. In addition, he provided the name of a third person who he identified as a “participant in that job” He also affirmed that the federal police agent indicted in the criminal proceedings “was part of the group” and that he was “the perpetrator” of the act. 183 89. Lastly, as already indicated, at the time of his death, Mr. Gutiérrez was investigating a bonded warehouse subsequently linked to a series of cases of corruption, smuggling, fraud, drug-trafficking, and unlawful association of public officials, inter alia, at the national level, known as the “case of the parallel customs house” (supra para. 42). 90. In view of the acknowledgement of responsibility made by Argentina, the Court considers it reasonable to grant probative value to the series of indications analyzed above; in particular to those derived from the State organs that were responsible for the investigation that have not been disproved. These/ indications allow the Court to conclude that State agents participated in the execution of Assistant Commissioner Jorge Omar Gutiérrez, as well as in the obstruction of the investigation. In this regard, the Court notes that the failure to comply with the obligation to respect human rights is particularly serious because it involved a direct violation of human rights by State agents. 91. It should be noted that, in this investigation with due diligence, with reasonable time is made in Chapter Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of case, the analysis of the obligation to conduct an effective judicial oversight, and complying with a VIII-2 with regard to Articles 8 and 25 of the this instrument. 181 Cf. Brief of May 4, 1999, addressed to the judge of the proceedings (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, folios 1826-9 to 1826-11). 182 Cf. Brief of May 4, 1999, addressed to the judge of the proceeding (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, folios 1826-13 to 1826-16, 1826-19 and 1826-20). 183 Cf. Statement of the detained witness of October 24, 2000, before Transitional Court No. 2 of La Plata (file of annexes to the submission brief, folios 231 and 232), and Statement of the detained witness of September 24, 2003, before el Transitional Court No. 2 of La Plata (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, folios 1902 to 1907). 36