arguing that the suspects were Mexican military officers on active service on the day of the events. On December 14, 1999, said Agent of the Federal Public Prosecutor declined jurisdiction to his military counterpart in the 35th Military Zone. 296 Finally, on June 13, 2000, the Office of the Prosecutor General for Military Justice issued an order to archive the case file, considering that there were no elements to prove the torture. 297 195. It has also been mentioned that (supra para. 75) at the same time, Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel filed a complaint before the Human Rights Defense Commission of the state of Guerrero on May 14, 1999, concerning the facts of this case. As a result, case file CODDEHUM-CRTC/031/99-I was opened, which was subsequently referred to the CNDH due to jurisdiction issues. The CNDH launched an investigation in order to corroborate the facts. The CNDH then issued Recommendation 8/2000, which determined that “given the repeated silence [on the part of the Office of the Prosecutor General for Military Justice],” 298 said office “presumed that the [allegations] of torture were true” in keeping with Articles 38 and 70 of the CNDH Law” (supra para. 75). Also, in one of its recommendations, the CNDH ordered “the Office for the Prosecutor General of the Military Justice (PGJM) to open a preliminary investigation against the members of the Mexican Army who authorized, supervised, implemented and carried out the operation in the period from May 1 through May 4, 1999.” 299 196. In response to the CNDH’s recommendations, the State ordered the opening of Preliminary Inquiry number SC/304/2000/VII-I. On February 10, 2001, the Office of the Military Prosecutor General went to the Iguala de la Independencia Prison, where the victims were being held in order to confirm their complaints. That day, Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel filed a brief addressed to the PGJM, demanding that said institution decline jurisdiction and return the Preliminary Inquiry to the Attorney General’s jurisdiction. 300 In the case file before the Court, there is no response to such a request. On November 3, 2001, the Office of the Military Prosecutor General recommended that the criminal record be archived, since it determined that: “the body of evidence in this inquiry is not sufficient to demonstrate that civilians RODOLFO MONTIEL FLORES and TEODORO CABRERA GARCÍA were tortured while in the custody of military personnel. […] To refer the present inquiry to the Prosecutor General for Military Justice, with a reasoned report proposing that no criminal action be brought and that the inquiry be definitively filed, with the exceptions that the law provides, so that after consulting his assigned agents, he may decide whether or not to confirm the proposal […].” 301 197. Regarding the intervention of the military courts to hear matters that 296 CNDH. Recommendation N° 8/2000 of July 14, 2000, supra note 89, page 311. 297 Cf. Brief of June 20, 2006 in which the State submitted “its observations to the arguments on the merits of the petitioners, related to case 11449 Rodolfo Montiel Flores and Teodoro Cabrera García” before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (File of attachments to the application, volume II, page 676). 298 CNDH. Recommendation N° 8/2000 of July 14, 2000, supra note 89, page 312. 299 CNDH. Recommendation N° 8/2000 of July 14, 2000, supra note 89, page 313. 300 Cf. Brief presented on February 10, 2001 by Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel to the Agent of the Attorney General’s Office for Military Justice (Preliminary Inquiry N° 5C/304/2000/VIII) (File of attachments to the brief of pleadings and motions, volume XXI, page 8904). 301 Cf. Decision of the Preliminary Inquiry SC/304/2000/VIII-I of November 3, 2001, opened in response to Recommendation 08/2000 of the National Commission on Human Rights of Mexico (File of attachments to the application, volume XIX, pages 8364 to 8367). 74