7 reluctant to provide the necessary funds; that is why excavations were made only in those places which presented the greatest possibilities of finding the bodies; iii. on July 19, 2005, the Judge in charge of the 7th Trial Court informed that the investigation methodology was based in the judicialization of all the ad hoc Commission records. At present, due to the amendment of the code of criminal procedure of the province of Mendoza, the case passed, after two selfdisqualifications, to the Guarantees Court No. 1, which informed that there is a possibility that the case continues its progress in the Unidad Fiscal de Delitos Complejos (Complex Crimes Prosecution Unit). With respect to the individualization of those responsible for the disappearances of Garrido and Baigorria, nobody has been accused or prosecuted to date. The trial court informed that "beyond the suspicion involving the police personnel mentioned in the report of the ad hoc Commission, the evidence gathered so far does not allow to assign any concrete criminal liability to anyone” and it stressed on the need to “act with the highest degree of care because in case of charging anyone with the investigated facts, that person’s procedural situation would have to be solved within six days [and,] considering the quality of the evidence gathered, […] the accused should have to be dismissed on the grounds of lack of evidence and eventually an extraordinary extension of the investigation term, the limit of which is six months, should have to be granted; if his/her procedural situation did not change after the above mentioned sixmonth term, a final dismissal should have to be ordered, which in the future would prevent to again submit the suspect to the prosecution process by virtue of the non bis in idem constitutional principle,” and c) finally, the State claimed that the investigation conducted by the ad hoc Commission, "which had the approval of the Supreme Court, the Inter-American Commission and the National Executive Power, […] from the National State point of view, has legal weight to prosecute and punish those who were identified as responsible [and that there w]ere important, clear and conclusive testimonies against those responsible for the kidnapping and the disappearance of Mr. Garrido and Mr. Baigorria.” It expressed that “the [resulting] evidence had been made available to the Judicial Power based on [a] [Supreme] Court Administrative Provision”, but that it arouse doubts to the Judicial Power authorities with respect to the nature of that evidence. That is why it expressed that “if we do not continue to support this proceeding, both the Commission and the Court, the Judicial Power may continue to have doubts on whether that evidence is conclusive and necessary to render judgment […].” It clarified that when the ad hoc Commission was created, in order to vest it with legal value before the courts, the Supreme Court was requested to approve the creation of the said Commission, approval which was effected through an Administrative Provision by means of which the Supreme Court declared the availability of Judicial Power members to hear testimony jointly with the members of the ad hoc Commission, who received more than 200 testimonial statements. 7. That representative Carlos Varela Alvarez, during the above mentioned private hearing, stated the following: a) with respect to the investigation of the disappearances of Mr. Garrido and Mr. Baigorria, the next of kin caused the case file to move forward in the first place, and then the representatives. He pointed out that the government of Mendoza is