people who participated in it”138. In particular, the Court reproached the police officers "for not showing the slightest concern [...] either to receive testimonial statements from those who witnessed the actual discovery of the engine, or to carry out a reconstruction or observation of the place where it was found”139. 163. On the other hand, according to the ruling issued by the Federal Oral Criminal Court No. 3, once the remains of the engine had been extracted from the area of the explosion and the serial number that was engraved on it had been verified, during the night of July 25, 1994, agents from the Operations Department of the SIDE Counterintelligence Directorate began a search operation for the owner of the vehicle that had been used as a car bomb140. With that objective, and after consulting with the motor vehicle ownership registries, the investigators went, firstly, to the headquarters of the company Messin S.R.L, the original owner of the vehicle, and then to the premises of a vehicle dealership called “Alejandro Automotores”. The inquiries carried out at “Alejandro Automotores” led the officials to a building located on 107 República Street in the town of Villa Ballester, owned by Carlos Telleldín and his partner141. 164. Based on the statement in the oral trial of several SIDE agents and police officers belonging to the Department for the Protection of the Constitutional Order of the Argentine Federal Police (DPOC), the Court reached the conclusion that, during the days of July 26 and July 27, personnel from both agencies carried out “a series of procedures ignored in the file, aimed at identifying Carlos Alberto Telleldín and obtaining, in a surreptitious way, information about his movements and surroundings, all within the framework of an anomalous negotiation between the investigative bodies -the Secretariat of State Intelligence and the Argentine Federal Police- with the relatives of the person who appeared as the main suspect in such a serious incident”142. 165. Specifically, TOF 3 found that, in the afternoon of July 26, SIDE agents, together with DPOC officers, broke into the address on 107 República Street. Police and intelligence officers did not have a judicial search warrant and in the file "there is no record of the raid”143. At that time, only Telleldín's partner, Ana Maria Boragni and their three underaged children were present in the building144. 166. During the night of July 26, Telleldín’s partner was transferred to the DPOC headquarters to testify, while another group of SIDE and DPOC officials remained at the residence together with Boragni's children 145 . According to these agents, they stayed at Telleldín's residence from the afternoon of July 26 until the afternoon of July 27, and left when Telleldín was detained at the Jorge Newbery Airport, upon returning from a trip to the north of the country146. A formal raid on the 107 República Street property took place shortly after Telleldín's arrest147. 167. Regarding the meaning and procedural value of the raid carried out after the activities of the SIDE and DPOC agents, the TOF 3 indicated that “the permanence, for almost two consecutive days in the domicile in question, even during some periods of time in the absence of its owners, denies the certainty of any possible evidence emanating from the elements later seized in the raid”148. In the same sense, the Court assured that "the informal raid carried out by intelligence officials into the home of the accused violated the integrity of the evidence there, thus depriving the validity of the proceeding subsequently carried out, making it a mere fiction”149. Annex 2. Judgment of the TOF 3. Chapter V.B “Nullities”, pp. 2676-77. Annex 1 to the petitioner’s communication dated November 11, 2019. 139 Annex 2. Judgment of the TOF 3. Chapter V.B “Nullities”, p. 2676. Annex 1 to the petitioner’s communication dated November 11, 2019. 140 For an account of the route that led the SIDE agents from Messin S.R.L to Telleldín's home, passing through “Automotores Alejandro”, see: Annex 2. Judgment of the TOF 3. Chapter V.B “Nullities”, pp. 3678 to 3679. Annex 1 to the petitioner’s communication dated November 11, 2019. 141 See infra para. 57 142 Annex 2. Judgment of the TOF 3. Chapter IX, page 3730. Annex 1 to the petitioner’s communication dated November 11, 2019. 143 Annex 2. Judgment of the TOF 3. Chapter IX, page 3726. Annex 1 to the petitioner’s communication dated November 11, 2019. 144 Annex 2. Judgment of the TOF 3. Chapter IX, page 3706. Annex 1 to the petitioner’s communication dated November 11, 2019. 145 Annex 2. Judgment of the TOF 3. Chapter IX, page 3707. Annex 1 to the petitioner’s communication dated November 11, 2019. 146 Annex 2. Judgment of the TOF 3. Chapter IX, page 3699. Annex 1 to the petitioner’s communication dated November 11, 2019. 147 Annex 2. Judgment of the TOF 3. Chapter IX, page 3676. Annex 1 to the petitioner’s communication dated November 11, 2019. 148 Annex 2. Judgment of the TOF 3. Chapter IX, page 3731. Annex 1 to the petitioner’s communication dated November 11, 2019. 149 Annex 2. Judgment of the TOF 3. Chapter IX, page 3732. Annex 1 to the petitioner’s communication dated November 11, 2019. 138 33