Ricardo Romero, or they invoked representing public interests, such as former Captain Vergéz 199 . The Commission emphasizes that the domestic courts have established that such meetings were intended to prepare the ground for Telleldín to provide a statement that would allow to include in the investigation the hypothesis to involve in the preparation of the attack certain agents of the Police of the Province of Buenos Aires200. 207. The Commission verified - based on its role as an observer of the oral trial held before TOF 3 - that, indeed, it was only during the debate hearings that the judges of the oral court and the complainants were able to hear for the first time the circumstances that surrounded the decision to initiate and promote the line of investigation that falsely incriminated certain members of the Buenos Aires police of the authorship of the attack201. 208. Secondly, the Commission notes that it was only after those SIDE agents who were relieved of their duty of secrecy appeared at the oral trial hearings that it was possible to reconstruct the events of July 5, 1996; namely: the disbursement of a sum of money to Telleldín's partner at the Bank Quilmes de Ramos Mejía; the simultaneous communication of the success of that operation to Judge Galeano and Telleldín himself and, finally, the additional testimony where Telleldín mentioned that he delivered the Trafic van that was supposedly used as a car bomb to the Buenos Aires police officers belonging to the Vicente López and Lanús police brigades. 209. In relation to this point, the Commission considers it appropriate to highlight that the judge in charge of the investigation summoned, at the beginning of the investigation, the Secretary of State Intelligence (SIDE) to act as a justice aide202. The Commission also verified that, in accordance with the legislation in force at that time, the SIDE mandate included "collaborating with military, police, and judicial tasks when the competent authorities so require”203. 210. Based on the testimonial statements of the former agents and executives of the SIDE offered in court, the Commission found that, at the time of the events, the State had not proven that the functions of administration and disposition of the reserved funds in the power of the Intelligence Secretariat were subject to any kind of regulatory restriction. Similarly, there were no administrative mechanisms to guarantee an adequate record of the expenditures made and there were no agencies or bodies that could carry out external audits or public policies aimed at supervising the way in which the SIDE used its reserved funds204. 211. Based on the existing information, the Commission understands that the additional testimony made by the defendant Telleldín on July 5, 1996, could have hardly taken place were it not for the disbursement of a sum of money by agents of the State Intelligence Secretariat to his relatives. Likewise, the Commission emphasizes that the payment in question was only possible give the discretionary powers in matters of administration and disposition of reserved funds by the head of the Secretary of State Intelligence205. 212. The Commission highlights that - for years and despite repeated requests made by TOF 3 - the Intelligence Secretariat expressly denied the existence of the disbursement of money to those close to Telleldín. Indeed, it was not until the issuance of Decree 291/2003 in June 2003, which relieved the agents who participated in the payment operation of their obligation to keep secrecy, that said agents were able to testify See supra para 130 to 136. Annex 2. Judgment of the TOF 3. Chapter VIII.E. Pages. 3046 to 3048. Annex 1 to the petitioner’s communication dated November 11, 2019. 201 Annex 1. “Grossman Report”, p. 76 to 78. Annex 5 to the petitioner’s communication dated November 11, 2019 202 Annex 1. “Grossman Report”, p. 73. Annex 5 to the petitioner’s communication dated November 11, 2019 203 Law 20.195, art 8. Available at: http://servicios.infoleg.gob.ar/infolegInternet/annexs/115000-119999/119720/norma.htm 204 See, for example, testimonial statement of the Director of Finance of the Secretary of State Intelligence during Hugo Anzorreguy's administration, identified as witness with reserved identity no. 5: “there was an operation for 200 thousand dollars that was as a special operation of the secretary of intelligence, for that reason there was no documentation. The only thing there was is a secret act…, ‘by virtue of decree 5315, the sum of 200 thousand dollars is considered disbursed ”. Annex 12. Judgment of the Federal Oral Criminal Court No. 2. Page 640. Annex 2 to the petitioner’s communication dated November 11, 2019. 205 Law 20.195 dated February 28, 1973. Available at: http://servicios.infoleg.gob.ar/infolegInternet/verNorma.do?id=119720 199 200 41