established by TOF 2, "limited himself to adding the proceedings to the record [...] without making any kind of observation or requesting explanations, thus consenting to the illegal actions of the personnel in charge of the measure”161. 179. Regarding the measures of interception of the telephone communications of the individuals linked to Mr. Kanoore Edul, the TOF 2 found that on July 26, 1994, former Judge Galeano ordered the intervention under the modality of direct listening of three lines requested by the SIDE. The interceptions were in place starting July 29162. In accordance with the legislation and practices in force at that time, SIDE agents were in charge of both managing the means to intercept communications, and of proceeding to directly listen to the conversations and record them on various devices163. 180. However, TOF 2 verified that these three measures of interception of communications were annulled by Judge Galeano at the request of the Secretary and the Undersecretary of Intelligence of the Nation. These officials, in successive notes, informed the judge that the measures "lacked informational value”164. The Court also noted that, in the three cases, the former Judge Galeano “even without having the wiretaps and transcripts that would allow him to make a real evaluation about the importance or not of maintaining the intervention of the line, decreed without any analysis […] the end of the phone tapping”165. In view of this situation, TOF 2 concluded that it was “inadmissible to conclude that the product of listening to the line lacked informative value without having carried out its corresponding analysis, this situation can be explained from the will to harm and deliberately hamper the line of investigation on Kanoore Edul by the auxiliary agents of justice with the deliberate complacency of the judge of the case”166. 181. Also, the court also deemed as proven that the tapes, where the intercepted communications on the individuals connected to Kanoore Edul were recorded by SIDE, went missing when in custody of DPOC and of the Federal Operations Division of the Superintendence of Dangerous Drugs of the Federal Police, units that were in charge of the transcripts on paper of the recorded communications167. 182. Likewise, the transcripts made by the aforementioned departments of the Federal Police were sent to the court of former Judge Galeano, where the TOF 2 verified that they also went missing. In effect, the Court pointed out that “then judge Galeano, upon the requirements formulated by the judge of the Federal Oral Criminal Court No. 3 of the wiretaps and their transcripts in question, argued he could not find them in his court and at he was never able to forward them to the court in charge of conducting the oral and public trial”168. 183. In summary, the two major cores of irregularities accredited by the Federal Oral Criminal Court No. 2 that affected the deepening of the so-called “Syrian/Kanoore Edul lead” were: on the one hand, the deliberate breach of the raid ordered on the building at 2633 Constitución Street by the police without an explanation in this regard from the judge; and on the other hand, the interruption of the wiretapping measures initiated with respect to three individuals linked to Mr. Kanoore Edul and the subsequent loss of the tapes on which they were recorded and their paper transcriptions. In the opinion of TOF 2, former judge Galeano avoided “producing all Annex 12. Judgment of the Federal Oral Criminal Court No. 2 dated May 3, 2019, p. 376. Annex 2 to the petitioner’s communication dated November 11, 2019. 162 Annex 12. Judgment of the Federal Oral Criminal Court No. 2 dated May 3, 2019, pp. 336 and 337. Annex 2 to the petitioner’s communication dated November 11, 2019. 163 Decree 1801/92 dated September 29, 1992. Available at: http://mepriv.mecon.gov.ar/Normas/1801-92.htm 164 See, for example, writ from the State Intelligence Secretariat addressed to Judge Galeano dated August 8, 1994, transcript in: Annex 12. Judgment of the Federal Oral Criminal Court No. 2 dated May 3, 2019, p. 381. Annex 2 to the petitioner’s communication dated November 11, 2019. 165 Regarding the line of individual 449-4706, see: Annex 12. Judgment of the Federal Oral Criminal Court No. 2 dated May 3, 2019, p. 381. Annex 2 to the petitioner’s communication dated November 11, 2019; Regarding the line of individual 942-9181, see: Annex 12. Judgment of the Federal Oral Criminal Court No. 2 dated May 3, 2019, p. 388. Annex 2 to the petitioner’s communication dated November 11, 2019. 166 Annex 12. Judgment of the Federal Oral Criminal Court No. 2 dated May 3, 2019, p. 394. Annex 2 to the petitioner’s communication dated November 11, 2019. 167 Annex 12. Judgment of the Federal Oral Criminal Court No. 2 dated May 3, 2019, pp. 402 to 411. Annex 2 to the petitioner’s communication dated November 11, 2019. 168 Annex 12. Judgment of the Federal Oral Criminal Court No. 2 dated May 3, 2019, p. 401. Annex 2 to the petitioner’s communication dated November 11, 2019. 161 36