on the date of entry and the last day of work of Mr. García Lucero, accompanied by the letter terminating his work contract dated November 7, 1973. According to the letter, “[Mr.] García [Lucero] began working [on] July 1, 1971, and his contract was terminated on November 7, 1973.” 106 94. On August 7, 2012, the 34th Court received a report from the Investigation Brigade, in which it described different measures implemented (supra paras. 92 and 93). In this report, in addition to the person presumably responsible identified previously (supra para. 85), a further two persons were “identified,” without indicating the nature of their responsibility. 107 95. On August 20, 2012, as a result of a decision of the 34th Court, one of the individuals identified in the report of the Investigation Brigade was summoned to testify, and it was decided to issue an arrest warrant against the person indicated as presumably responsible for the facts, since he had not come forward to testify, “despite being summoned by mail.” 108 This warrant, “against whoever it may concern, for the offense of disobeying the orders of the [34th Court,]” was issued on the same date, and indicated “with a search of his home if necessary.” 109 96. On September 24, 2012 the 34th Court received Police Report No. 4248, in relation to the arrest warrant it had issued with instruction to ensure the appearance of the person required. This report states that the person presumably responsible for the facts “had not been arrested” and “requested that new arrest warrant be sent” with “the address registered by the wife [of the person presumably responsible], so as to be able to establish whether [he] lives at that address in order to notify him.” 110 By a decision of the 34th Court of September 25, 2012, it was decided to issue a new arrest warrant against the person presumably responsible, at the residence of his wife. 111 97. On October 2, 2012, the lawyer who had filed the complaint, Mr. Ricardi, asked the 34th Court to examine the measures take in the preliminary proceedings in order “to contribute to the success of the investigation and urge that it be completed promptly.” In a decision of October 8, 2012, this request was admitted. 112 106 Cf. Letter of July 31, 2012, from the Sociedad Hipódromo Chile S.A., signed by Luis Ignacio Salas Maturana, Manager, received by the 34th Court on August 2, 2012, and Letter of dismissal of November 7, 1973, signed by Ricardo Echeverría Verdara, Head of the Personnel Department of the Sociedad Hipódromo Chile S.A., addressed to Mr. García Lucero (annexes to the final written arguments of the State, annex 3, fs. 1197 and 1198). 107 Cf. Police report No. 3498/00 dated August 6, 2012, issued by the Investigation Brigade, received by the 34th Court on August 7, 2012 (annexes to the final written arguments of the State, annex 3, fs. 1200 to 1203). 108 Cf. Decision of August 20, 2012, of Cheryl Fernández Albornoz, Alternate Judge of the 34th Court (annexes to the final written arguments of the State, annex 3, f. 1217). 109 Cf. Arrest warrant dated August 20, 2012, issued by Cheryl Fernández Albornoz, Alternate Judge of the 34th Court (annexes to the final written arguments of the State, annex 3, f. 1219). 110 Cf. Police report No. 4248 of the Investigation Brigade concerning the arrest warrant issued by the 34th Court (annexes to the final written arguments of the State, annex 3, fs. 1223 to 1225). 111 Cf. Decision of September 25, 2012, of Cheryl Fernández Albornoz, Alternate Judge of the 34th Court (annexes to the final written arguments of the State, annex 3, f. 1226). 112 Cf. Brief of the lawyer José Antonio Ricardi Romero of the Public Legal Assistance Service received on October 2, 2012, by the 34th Court, and decision of October 8, 2012, of Cheryl Fernández Albornoz, Alternate Judge of the 34th Court (annexes to the final written arguments of the State, annex 3, fs. 1236 and 1237, respectively). 32