252. The Commission emphasizes that the determination of the identity of the person who would have immolated themselves in the attack on the AMIA is especially important, since based on this information, the accusatory hypotheses currently maintained by the prosecution could be confirmed or, alternatively, point to other lines of investigation. Moreover, identifying the material author of the attack and their possible social connections or political affiliations would represent a great step towards determining the totality of material and intellectual responsibilities, and guaranteeing the right to the truth of the victims, their families, and society in general. 253. The Commission recalls that the fact that the State failed, until 2016, to inventory the organic remains collected at the scene of the incident reflects in itself the lack of due diligence by the State. This omission also explains why the genetic comparison that ruled out that the unidentified sample found in the PFA Chemical Laboratory belonged to Ibrahim Hussein Berro could only have been completed in November 2017. 254. The duty to act with due diligence demanded, in this case, that the State used all the necessary means to investigate exhaustively and without delay the aforementioned hypothesis, by practicing all the pertinent tests, including the genetic analysis of the organic sample that was in storage without identification. This was even more crucial considering that, at least since October 2006, a central part of the public accusatory hypothesis revolved around the identification of Berro as the individual who would have acted as a suicide driver of the Trafic van that would have been used as a car bomb. The Commission concludes that the failure to carry out this evidentiary procedure in a timely manner, as well as others that would make it possible to strengthen the line of investigation that links Hezbollah and officials and nationals of the Islamic Republic of Iran with the incident, also prevented other complementary lines of investigation from being explored, which did not necessarily include the participation of Berro or his alleged associates in the attack, negatively impacting the progress of the investigations. iii) Regarding the death of the prosecutor in charge of the investigation 255. As mentioned in the facts section, on January 18, 2015, the body of Prosecutor Nisman, then head of the UFI AMIA, was found lifeless at his home in the city of Buenos Aires. The event occurred days after the UFI AMIA filed a criminal complaint against several state officials in connection to a possible cover-up related to the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding between the Argentine Republic and the Islamic Republic of Iran. (see supra para. 84). 256. In relation to this fact, the Commission observes that it is not the subject of this case to rule on the death of Mr. Nisman and the circumstances in which it took place, since this fact is being investigated by the Argentine judicial authorities and since they could eventually be the subject of a new petition before the inter-American system. In what is relevant to this case, the Commission considers only stating that the lack of clarification of such circumstances has not allowed in the present case to identify whether there would be a causal link between such death and the role of Mr. Nisman as a justice operator and , in particular the duty of the State to have adopted the required measures in the face of all kinds of risks that may arise in relation to persons investigating human rights violations248. In this regard, the Commission observes the importance of the State continuing to investigate said event and clarify the circumstances in which it took place. iv) Regarding the failure to adopt appropriate measures to determine the identity of the socalled "victim 85" The Court has established in its jurisprudence that in order to comply with the obligation to investigate “in accordance with the provisions of Article 1.1 of the Convention, the State must adopt, ex officio and immediately, sufficient measures of comprehensive protection and investigation against any act of coercion, intimidation, and threats to witnesses and investigators”. On this topic, see, among others: I/A Court H.R., Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009. Series C No. 196, para.107. 248 50