at the Battalion to draw up a record of the weapons and, possibly, to issue other documents that would then be presented at the criminal proceeding" and which the judges considered valid. The representative indicated that all this was done in collusion with the court-appointed defense lawyers. The domestic courts accepted these arguments and, therefore, the defense counsels and the attesting witnesses, who submitted these statements before the Public Prosecutor, were called to render a testimony. 246 In addition, the courts conducted confrontation procedures with the victims 247 and concluded that the victims had received adequate counseling. 159. In the statements rendered on May 4, 1999, the victims accepted the facts 248 presented by the military in the complaint sheet against them. 249 However, the domestic courts considered that in that statement, Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel “were duly informed of their individual guarantees, as their court-appointed defense counsel was required to do, and as he [himself] admitted.” 250 Regarding the statements rendered on May 6, the court-appointed defense counsel stated that she had spoken to Mr. Montiel but she could not remember for how long, that she asked him some questions regarding his arrest and his treatment by the soldiers who arrested him. 251 The domestic judicial courts considered that these statements rendered on May 6, 1999 were in accordance with the law and “with the assistance" of a court- appointed defense counsel “who was designated by the accused themselves” and that “the proceedings themselves contain the counsel’s interventions in favor of the accused.” 252 In particular, the judgment issued on August 21, 2002 by the First Single-Magistrate Court considered that: “Mr. [Montiel] received assistance during all his appearances before the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the District Court, and was duly informed and notified of the reasons for the charges against him; he was granted adequate time and means to prepare his defense; he received counseling from his defense counsels or from trusted persons with whom he 246 Cf. Proceeding before the Fifth District Court of January 21, 2000 in which the testimonies of two attesting witnesses and one court-appointed defense counsel were rendered, supra note 230, pages 10437 to 10462. Also, proceeding before the Fifth District Court of January 27, 2000, in which the testimonies of two attesting witnesses and one court-appointed defense counsel were rendered (File of attachments to the answer brief, volume XXIV, pages 10478 and 10497). 247 Cf. Confrontation procedures before the Fifth District Court of February 28, 2000 between Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel and a court-appointed defense counsel and an attesting witness (File of attachments to the answer brief, volume XXV, pages 10599 to 10615). Also, confrontation procedures before the Fifth District Court of February 29 and March 15, 2000, between Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel and two attesting witnesses and a court-appointed defense counsel (File of attachments to the answer brief, volume XXV, pages 10619 to 10624 and 10672 to 10687). 248 8199. 249 Statement of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel of May 4, 1999, supra note 142, pages 8198 to Cf. Complaint filed by the Second Infantry Captain et al, supra note 66, pages 4212 to 4214. 250 The First Single-Magistrate Tribunal pointed out that in the confrontation procedures conducted between the victims and the court-appointed defense counsel in the statement of May 4, “the latter repeated that they rendered their statement, without any pressure, before the Agent of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Arcelia, Guerrero and that he acted as their defense counsel in that procedure, confirming that the procedure was conducted according to law and with full respect for individual guarantees.” Cf. Judgment issued on August 21, 2002 by the First Single-Magistrate Tribunal, supra note 148, page 15187. According to the court-appointed defense counsel who assisted the victims in their statements of May 4, 1999, before the proceeding, he suggested that Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel “render the statement without feeling any kind of pressure” and that “they should not feel pressured by the presence of the judicial officials.” Cf. Proceeding before the Fifth District Court of January 21, 2000 in which two attesting witnesses and one court-appointed defense counsel rendered their testimonies, supra note 230, page 10455. This version was ratified in one of the confrontation hearings. 251 Cf. Confrontation hearings before the Fifth District Court of February 28, 2000, supra note 247, pages 10599 to 10615. 252 Cf. Judgment of August 21, 2002 issued by the First Single-Magistrate Tribunal, supra note 148, page 15191. 63