domestic courts considered that although the soldiers did not agree on whether the victims were transferred to Arcelia, the case file contains records of the proceedings carried out that day by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, 232 and d) the alleged formal language used by Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel, even though, at the time of the facts, they could not read or write, for which reason those statements could not be attributed to them. 233 The domestic courts made no specific reference to this argument. 150. In its analysis of the right to personal liberty, the Court previously indicated that it is not appropriate to make any statement on the causes that motivated the arrest of the alleged victims (supra para. 102). The Court will now proceed to analyze, where applicable, the specific impact that these alleged irregularities might have had on some guarantees. 151. In order to analyze the alleged violations of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention and the alleged non-compliance with the obligations established in other Inter-American treaties related thereto, the Court will examine the following points in relation to the criminal proceeding undertaken against Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel, 1) the right to defense; 2) the obligation not to consider evidence obtained under duress and 3) the principle of presumption of innocence. As regards the investigation process into the alleged torture conducted by the military criminal justice system, the Court will examine: 1) the ex officio investigation; 2) the competence of the military criminal courts; 3) the effective judicial remedy of the military criminal justice system, and 4) adaptation of Mexican domestic law to the intervention of the military criminal justice system. 232 In the judgment of October 26, 2000, the Single-Magistrate Court indicated that: “it is irrelevant [that the first soldier] initially stated that he had no idea on what date and at what time the detainees were taken to Arcelia and, subsequently, in the same proceeding, said that they were never taken to that place […] while [the second soldier] indicated that they were brought before the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Arcelia […], this because […] the case file contains precisely the measures taken by that investigating official, […] suggesting that there is no doubt whatsoever as to whether or not they were brought before the aforementioned authority.” Cf. Judgment of October 26, 2000 issued by the First Single-Magistrate Tribunal, supra note 77, page 12083. 233 In his statement at the public hearing, Mr. Montiel stated that he “cannot read or write" and that, as a result, had to "make up a signature" when he signed the statements. Cf. Statement rendered by Mr. Rodolfo Montiel Flores at the public hearing, supra note 177. Previously, in the domestic criminal proceeding, at a confrontation hearing with the defense counsel, Mr. Montiel indicated that "the soldiers never read the briefs, that he can read a little but that Teodoro cannot.” Cf. Confrontation hearing between Mr. Rodolfo Montiel Flores and the court-appointed counsel of February 28, 2000 before the Fifth District Court of Iguala, cited in the Judgment issued on October 26, 2000 by the First SingleMagistrate Tribunal, supra note 77, page 11616. In his statement before a public notary, Mr. Cabrera indicated that he “cannot read or write” Cf. Statement rendered by Mr. Teodoro Cabrera García before a public notary, supra note 147, page 1191. This was also certified by expert witness Deutsch, who confirmed that Mr. Cabrera “cannot read or write.” Cf. Expert opinion rendered by expert witness Ana Deustch by affidavit, supra note 174, page 1311. In the domestic sphere, the defense counsel of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel indicated that "the first three statements attributed to the defendants have no value either, since they were clearly prepared previously; they did not make these statements, since the basic structure of the documents is simply the same: they accept the soldiers’ allegations, that they were carrying firearms, they incriminate each other, if they disassociate themselves with some action, they immediately incriminate the co-accused and use expressions that are not typical of uneducated peasants.” Cf. Motion of Appeal filed on August 30, 2000 before the Fifth District Judge, mentioned in the Judgment issued on October 26, 2000 by the First Single-Magistrate Tribunal, supra note 77, pages 11528-11815. Moreover, a judicial authority noted that "Rodolfo Montiel only attended first grade of primary school and can only read and write very little.” Cf. Judgment issued on October 26, 2000 by the First Single-Magistrate Tribunal, supra note 77, page 12706. Furthermore, a medical certificate issued in May 2000 in relation to Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel stated that they were “illiterate.” Cf. Certificate of medical and psychophysical condition issued on May 19, 2000, supra note 156, page 2074. 60