documents. 108 Guerrero is “one [of] the few [states] with two military zones out of 41 in total" and also includes a military region, "IX, out of XII regions; the budget for this region had a percentage increase of 50.14 per cent from 2000 to 2009, an increase greater than that for all the other regions except for region I.” 109 83. In this specific case, the Court notes that in the military operation carried out in the community of Pizotla on May 2, 1999, prior to the arrest of Mr. Cabrera and Mr. Montiel, the military group involved was made up of 43 soldiers. 110 In this regard, the CNDH verified that the military unit went to this location to confirm information regarding a gang ("gavilla") (supra para. 67). The CNDH considered it proven that “the town […] was besieged,” “was under surveillance,” and that “military personnel […] fired their weapons, terrorizing the civilian population of the community of Pizotla, and treated the women and children brutally. They kept the entire community incommunicado for two days.” 111 The CNDH established that “the conduct displayed [by the military forces] ordered to direct, supervise and authorize this operation violated the human rights of the inhabitants of the community, […] by preventing them from exercising their right to freedom of movement […].” 112 84. For their part, the defense counsels of the alleged victims in the domestic proceedings pointed out that the Mexican Army is not a competent authority to investigate and prosecute crimes, and that “it will be the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the Judicial Police under its command or the assistants of the Social Representative himself who may verify [the] inconveniences [and deprivation of liberty].” 113 In this regard, the Second Collegiate Court considered that the Army was authorized to arrest the alleged victims “based on their carrying firearms intended for the exclusive use of the Armed Forces.” 114 85. Taking these elements into account, the Court considers that this case is related to previous jurisprudence where, based on an official State document, 115 it was confirmed that the presence of the Army carrying out police work in the state of Guerrero has been a controversial issue with respect to individual and community rights and freedoms, and has placed the population in a vulnerable situation. 116 86. In this regard, the Court considers that, in some contexts and circumstances, a heavy military presence accompanied by the intervention of the Armed Forces in public security activities may imply a risk to human rights. Thus, for example, international organizations, such as the United Nations Human Rights Committee and the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, have considered the implications of allowing military units to act as 108 Cf. Affidavit rendered by Miguel Carbonell Sánchez, supra note 106, pages 1166 and 1168 and affidavit of José Luis Piñeyro, supra note 107, pages 1284 to 1294. 109 Cf. Statement rendered by Jose Luis Piñeyro, supra note 107, page 1288. 110 Cf. CNDH. Recommendation N° 8/2000 of July 14, 2000, supra note 89, page 8440. 111 Cf. CNDH. Recommendation N° 8/2000 of July 14, 2000, supra note 89, pages 8181 to 8367. 112 Cf. CNDH. Recommendation N° 8/2000 of July 14, 2000, supra note 89, pages 8181 to 8367. 113 Cf. Judgment issued on August 14, 2002 by the Second Collegiate Tribunal, supra note 84, page 14414. 114 Cf. Judgment issued on August 14, 2002 by the Second Collegiate Tribunal, supra note 84, page 14533. 115 Study on violence against women in the municipalities of the region of La Montaña de Guerrero. Secretariat for Women Affairs of the State of Guerrero and others. Cf. Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico. Supra note 39, para. 79. 116 Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico, supra note 39, para. 79. 32