1.3. Applications for amparo filed by Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel against the decision of the First Single-Magistrate Court 71. On March 9, 2001, the alleged victims filed an application for amparo relief before the Second Collegiate Court of the Twenty-First Circuit (hereinafter “the Second Collegiate Court”), for the purpose of challenging the decision of the First Single-Magistrate Court. 79 Among the various arguments included in the petition by the representatives, it was claimed that the appeal judgment did not take into account a medical report that concluded that Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel had been tortured. This medical report was issued by the forensic experts Christian Tramsen and Morris Tidball-Binz, for the Danish section of the organization “Physicians for Human Rights – Denmark.” 80 72. On May 9, 2001, the Second Collegiate Court granted the appeal (amparo), and ordered the First Single-Magistrate Court to issue a new appeal judgment that admitted said expert evidence offered by the legal counsel. 81 On July 16, 2001, after assessing said item of evidence, the judicial body upheld the condemnatory judgment of the Fifth District Judge against Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel. 82 On October 24, 2001 the legal counsel of Messrs. Montiel and Cabrera filed a new application for direct amparo relief against this judgment. 83 73. On August 14, 2002, the Second Collegiate Court issued its amparo ruling, and denied relief in relation to Mr. Cabrera García. 84 With respect to Mr. Montiel Flores, the court turned down the amparo in relation to the alleged irregularities in the conviction for carrying a firearm; therefore, his conviction became final. However, the Collegiate Court determined that “the evidence provided to the competent court is neither effective nor sufficient to prove the essential elements of the crime” of marijuana cultivation and of carrying a firearm without a permit, specifically, a rifle. 85 1.4. Investigation opened into alleged acts of torture against the presumed victims. Actions of the Military Courts and of the National Human Rights Commission 74. On August 26, 1999, as part of the criminal proceedings conducted against Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel, their legal counsel asked the Fifth District Judge to order the Public Prosecutor’s Office to investigate the allegations of torture, solitary confinement and unlawful detention to which they were subjected at the Army’s 79 Cf. Application for direct amparo of March 9, 2001 (Criminal Amparo [“relief”] 117/2001) (File of attachments to the answer brief, volume XXVII, pages 12243 to 12471). 80 Cf. Application for direct amparo of March 9, 2001, supra note 79, page 12440. 81 Cf. Ruling on direct amparo issued on May 9, 2001 by the Second Collegiate Court of the Twenty-First Circuit (Criminal amparo [“relief”] 117/2001) (File of attachments to the answer brief, volume XXVIII, pages 12496 to 12961). 82 Cf. Judgment issued on July 16, 2001 by the First Single-Magistrate Court of the Twenty-First Circuit (Criminal Docket Number 406/2000) (File of attachments to the answer brief, volume XXVIII, page 13022 to volume XXIX, page 13733). 83 Cf. Application for direct amparo of October 24, 2001 (Criminal amparo [“relief”] 499/2001) (File of attachments to the answer brief, volume XXIX, page 13757 to volume XXX, page 13951). 84 Cf. Ruling issued on August 14, 2002 by the Second Collegiate Court of the Twenty-First Circuit (Criminal amparo [“relief”] 499/2001) (File of attachments to the answer brief, volume XXX, pages 13974 to 14536). 85 Cf. Judgment of August 14, 2002 issued by the Second Collegiate Tribunal, supra note 84, pages 13974 to 14536. 28