respect to the firearms and the sodium rhodizonate test, the issue of in flagrante delicto had allegedly been proved on the basis of statements that were allegedly false and, moreover, obtained under torture. For this reason, the representatives criticized the Recommendation made by the CNDH, asserting that it “accepted, without any analysis, the version narrated by the soldiers concerning the reasons for the arrest [of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel],” “disregard[ing] all evidence [to the contrary], without providing an assessment or explanation, to reaffirm the version of the agents mentioned as responsible [in this case].” 149. In addition to the alleged torture, the Court notes that the specific irregularities mentioned by the representatives in relation to those statements are the following: a) the alleged absence of an ex officio defense, that is, that the courtappointed counsels signed those statements, thereby endorsing those irregular documents. This alleged irregularity will be analyzed by the Court in the chapter concerning the right to defense (infra paras. 152 to 162); b) one of the witnesses who attested to the statement made on May 4, 1999 before the Prosecutor’s Office, and who was recognized by Mr. Montiel as one of his alleged torturers and who, during the confrontation hearing conducted within the framework of the criminal proceedings, carried a note containing the specific details of both the ministerial statement and the way in which to identify Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel. 230 Regarding this irregularity, the domestic courts stated that this did not call into question the truthfulness of the witness because Mr. Montiel had indeed recognized him and the witness is one of the employees of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Arcelia; 231 c) the alleged contradictions between two soldiers who participated in the arrest and whose answers do not coincide when asked whether the victims were handed over to the Office of the Public Prosecutor of Arcelia, and about the caliber of the weapons seized. In this regard, the 230 The defense counsel of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel placed on the record that “the declarant witness was reading a page from a small notebook, containing the answer given on the day of the events, which answers the question […] that I have just asked.” Due to this request by the defense, the Acting Secretary in Charge placed on the record that “the witness […] present here took from his trouser pocket a piece of paper which reads: 7:30 a.m., May 4, 1999, at 7:30 p.m. in Arcelia […] Forbidden weapons; Crime: enervating drugs 6: Weapons diff. caliber Teodoro sign in one eye Rodolfo.” Cf. Proceeding before the Fifth District Court of January 21, 2000 by which two witnesses and a courtappointed counsel rendered their testimony, during the statements of May 4, 1999 (File of attachments to the answer brief, volume XXIV, pages 10440 to 10441). 231 The judgment of October 26, 2000 stated that "it is unwise, on the part of the defendants, given that they mention that said altercation took place at the site of their arrest and at the military base, since the witness is an employee (…) of the Public Prosecutor’s Office (...) of Arcelia, Guerrero, and was categorical in stating that he never left said office where he works as quartermaster general.” As to the foregoing, the Court notes that this official was, in turn, the attesting witness during the proceedings for the removal of the body of Mr. Salome Sanchez in the municipality of Pizotla. Cf. Record of removal of body, visual inspection and death certificate of May 4, 1999, supra note 65, page 4208. In the judgment of August 21, 2002, the First Single-Magistrate Tribunal declared, in this respect, that: “and the defendants’ intention is even more evident when they put forward defensive arguments and state that [the attesting witness] was one of the persons who physically attacked them at the site of their arrest; thus, in attempting to identify him as his aggressor, the (court) does not consider it appropriate that, in said proceeding, a piece of paper with information regarding the identification of the accused was found on him, even though he only served as an attesting witness of the deposition before the local prosecutor of Arcelia, Guerrero, and he indicated that he was an assistant quartermaster in said office. Thus, if those who arrested them were only soldiers, it is not understandable that they would attempt to note the presence of a civilian that they never mentioned in their early statements, all of which diminishes the evidentiary value of their subsequent statements and proceedings in which they make the same argument.” Cf. Judgment of October 26, 2000 issued by the First Single-Magistrate Tribunal, supra note 77, pages 15265 and 15266. 59