in court and report in detail the way in which the two events in which Telleldín's relatives were paid a considerable sum of cash took place206. Also, Judge Galeano, as stated in TOF 3 "systematically concealed the existence of a payment made to Carlos Alberto Telleldín so that he could expand, in previously agreed terms, his testimony”207. 213. In this regard, the Commission emphasizes - in line with what was stated by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the fight against terrorism, Martin Scheinin - that the main function of intelligence agencies is the identification of potential threats to national security from the gathering and analysis of information 208. Although the main international human rights instruments do not expressly prohibit intelligence agencies from acting as auxiliaries to justice, there are convincing arguments that discourage the conjunction of state intelligence and criminal investigation functions. With regards to the assignment of arrest and detention powers to the intelligence agencies comparable inter alia to the rest of the typical activities of the police in judicial function- Special Rapporteur Scheinin assured that "there is a danger that a parallel security system is created, where intelligence services would exercise arrest and detention functions to circumvent the legal safeguards and supervision systems to which the State security forces are subject”209. 214. The Commission observes that the investigation led by former Judge Galeano, from 1994 to 2004, adopted as the only accusatory hypothesis, with regard to the so-called “local connection” of the attack, the one that indicated the participation of the Buenos Aires policemen indicated by Telleldín in his testimony of July 5, 1996. As has been established, this hypothesis was constructed and promoted through the use of a portion of the secret funds assigned to the SIDE, which were used with absolute discretion and absence of controls by the intelligence body where they came from. Indeed, from those funds came the sum of money that was paid to a defendant to incorporate into the file information that does not have other means of support in the file. This accusatory hypothesis fabricated as a result of said information was maintained by the state authorities for several years, to the point of raising the investigatory phase to oral proceedings. 215. All of the foregoing, in the Commission's opinion, points to the absence of rational content or support in the main line of investigation promoted by the State at that time, which is not only highly questionable and implies a lack of duty to investigate with due diligence, but also reveals a manifest partiality of the judge with an interest in generating a certain result that does not obey the evidentiary material legally incorporated into the investigation. These actions, which also made use of means that are also not supported by the guarantees of regular due process, do not in any way satisfy the right of the victims' next of kin to access justice. Furthermore, it carried severe consequences for the clarification of the serious human rights violations suffered by the victims in this case. iv) Conclusion 216. Based on what is stated in this chapter, the Commission concludes that, both at the beginning of the investigation and during the investigatory phase conducted by the Federal Criminal Court No. 9, a series of irregularities occurred such as failures in the practice of essential procedures, as well as the deliberate abandonment of some lines of investigation where further inquiry was a logical course of action to follow. For an account of the requests made by TOF 3 as of September 2001 and of the negative responses provided by the then SIDE authorities, see: Annex 2. Judgment of the TOF 3. Chapter VIII.V. P. 3588 to 3610. Annex 1 to the petitioner’s communication dated November 11, 2019. 207 Annex 2. Judgment of the TOF 3. Chapter VIII.B. Pages 2979 and 2980. Annex 1 to the petitioner’s communication dated November 11, 2019. 208 United Nations. Human Rights Council. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, Martin Scheinin*. A/HRC/10/3. February 4, 2009. Para. 26. Available at: https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G09/106/25/PDF/G0910625.pdf?OpenElement 209 United Nations. Human Rights Council. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, Martin Scheinin*. Compilation of good practices on legal and institutional frameworks and measures that ensure respect for human rights by intelligence agencies while countering terrorism, including on their oversight*. A/HRC/14/46. May 17, 2010. Para. 41. Available at https://fas.org/irp/eprint/unhrc.pdf 206 42