since while the soldiers indicate that they were lying down […], they in no way indicated that they had been in contact with the water in that river during that time.” 225 Subsequently, the same court reiterated that only the victims had mentioned that they had been in contact with the river water while they were detained that day. 226 147. Also, in relation to the crime of possession and planting of narcotics, the First Single Magistrate Court found various irregularities regarding the existence and destruction of the marijuana plantation. The court found that “no solid evidence was provided that proved its material and juridical existence, and instead the confession made by the accused […] was invalidated, 227 together with the remaining evidence produced in the natural proceeding.” 228 Finally, the court concluded that “there is no solid evidence in the court records to prove that the procedures ordered by the preliminary inquiry were ‘prefabricated’ without the intervention of the accused; instead, what happened in this case is that the measures taken as a result of the preliminary inquiry were inadequate.” Bearing in mind the foregoing, the conviction against Mr. Montiel for the crime of planting of marijuana was revoked. 229 148. In addition to the alleged irregularities related to the possession and use of firearms and narcotics and the sodium rhodizonate test, the representatives requested that the statements rendered by the victims on May 4 and 6, 1999 be disregarded, arguing that Messrs. Cabrera and García never left the premises of the military battalion where they were allegedly detained during those days. In this respect, their argument implies that, apart from other possible irregularities with 225 Cf. Judgment of October 26, 2000 issued by the First Single-Magistrate Tribunal, supra note 77, page 12137. 226 Cf. Judgment of July 16, 2001 issued by the First Single-Magistrate Tribunal, supra note 82, page 13656. 227 According to said statement before the Public Prosecutor’s Office on May 6, 1999, Mr. Montiel Flores allegedly claimed that “[he] plant[ed] marijuana because the Government did not help [them] with production projects.” He said his marijuana plantation was “at most, one-quarter of a [h]ectare[,] that [he] plant[ed] because [he] needed to sell it” and that “the marijuana seeds found were owned by another person, since [he] only plant[ed] the seeds he had, which were plant[ed] on January twentysecond, and which [he] alone cared for.” Cf. Statement of Mr. Montiel Flores of May 6, 1999, supra note 132, pages 9778 to 9779. 228 The First Single-Magistrate Tribunal considered that “none of the authorities charged with investigating the crimes, in accordance with Article 21 of the Constitution, exercised due diligence in inspecting the place where the marijuana plants were found;” there is an “evident and palpable contradiction” , as is clear from the statements given by the accused, that RODOLFO MONTIEL FLORES “is the one who planted the marijuana”, but “in the complaint, the soldiers claimed that the plantation was owned by ‘TEODORO CABRERA GARCÍA’.” The Tribunal added that “the aforementioned soldiers have introduced inconsistent and contradictory matters in their accusation,” “inasmuch as the alleged marijuana plantation was located ‘three hours on foot’ [...] but this circumstance cannot be ascertained from the evidence furnished in the court records.” The “record of the destruction [of the marijuana plantation] does not include a date […] nor does it include a description of the [plantation’s] precise location” and “does not refer to the procedure” used to measure the plantation and its density. Also, the photographs of the plantation “are not appropriate to prove [its] destruction.” Regarding the statement rendered by the Agent of the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office of Coyuca de Catalan, Guerrero, and by the Secretary of Agreements of the Criminal Court of First Instance of the Judicial District of Mina, it was concluded that the fact of “having seen fifteen plants with the characteristics of marijuana [...], only helps to demonstrate that this plant was seen, […] but in no way demonstrates the existence of the marijuana plantation in question.” Regarding the inconsistencies in the claims made by the soldiers, it indicated that one of them “admitted […] not remembering the exact location of the plot,” and that “none of the accused accompanied him;�� the other one stated that “the accused remained together [and] that on the day the plantation was destroyed, [Messrs. Montiel and Cabrera] were arrested in the community of Pizotla” and did not accompany them. Cf. Judgment issued on August 21, 2002 by the First Single-Magistrate Tribunal, supra note 148, pages 14580 to 14585. 229 Cf. Judgment of August 21, 2002 issued by the First Single-Magistrate Tribunal, supra note 148, pages 15317 and 15324. 58