complaining that he was forced to make it under torture or duress, the courts have no independent procedure to establish whether or not the confession was made voluntarily.” 263 170. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Court considers it appropriate to determine whether, in the instant case, a forced confession was used. It is worth noting that Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel, who could not read or write (supra para. 149) placed their fingerprints under the statements in which they confessed to criminal activities at three procedural stages: • • • In the statement rendered before the Public Prosecutor’s Office on May 4, 1999, Mr. Montiel Flores admitted: i) possession of weapon for the exclusive use of the Army, specifically a .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol; ii) possession, without a permit, of a .22 caliber rifle and iii) possession and cultivation of marijuana. For his part, Mr. Cabrera admitted: i) possession of a weapon for the exclusive use of the Army, specifically a 7.62 mm MI rifle, and magazine, ii) firing a weapon against the Army and iii) being a member of an illegal armed group (EPR). 264 In the statement rendered before the Public Prosecutor’s Office on May 6, 1999, Mr. Montiel Flores amended his initial confession, ratifying only the offenses of possessing a firearm for the exclusive use of the Army (a .45 caliber pistol) and the cultivation of marijuana. Mr. Cabrera García also amended the content of his initial statement, admitting only to possession of a firearm (a 7.62 caliber MI rifle). 265 In the preliminary statement of May 7, 1999, before the First Instance Court, Mr. Montiel Flores only admitted to possessing the firearm, whereas Mr. Cabrera ratified that he had been in the possession of a rifle and the magazine. 266 171. Since making these statements, the victims have never again admitted to having committed an unlawful act. The defense counsel in the domestic proceeding alleged that: “[…] it is clear that my client[s] were forced to sign papers, without knowing their content, which resulted in self-incriminating statements rendered at the Public Prosecutor's Office, after they had been held incommunicado, tortured, both physically and mentally, and threatened that their families would be harmed if they did not do so; I ask this court not to give any probative value whatsoever [to the statements] when ruling on this case.” 267 172. This Court notes that the tribunals which heard the instant case stated that: i) there was no proof that Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel were mistreated or torture in order to obtain their confession; 268 ii) although it was not proven that the 263 United Nations. Committee against Torture. Report on Mexico of May 25, 2003, supra note 203, para. 202. 264 8199. 265 9784. Statements of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel of May 4, 1999, supra note 142, pages 8198 and Statements of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel of May 6, 1999, supra note 132, pages 9778 and 266 Preliminary statements of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel of May 7, 1999, supra note 144, pages 9835 to 9838 and 9838 to 9842. 267 Cf. Arguments presented before the Fifth District Court of Iguala, Guerrero, on July 25, 2000, by the private defense counsel of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel (File of attachments to the answer brief, volume XXVI, page 11111). 268 The Fifth District Court declared that the criminal acts “were mainly corroborat[ed] by the statements made by the accused.” Accordingly, it pointed out that “said statements […] were made before the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Trial Court […] by fully cognizant adults, subject neither to 67