Mexican State, thereby remedying any violation […], which could be implied by an investigation conducted by a military authority.” It also explained that even though "the proceedings conducted by the Military Attorney General […] concluded that no torture was committed, they were not taken into account by the Judiciary when issuing its respective rulings.” Furthermore, the State indicated that “the defense […] had at its disposal and made full use of different simple and prompt remedies, which legally enabled it to bring before the competent judicial instances the alleged acts of torture.” It emphasized that “[s]aid remedies were effective for the defense inasmuch as, at first, […] the Collegiate Court ordered the legal assessment of an expert opinion that could have demonstrated the innocence of the […] victims [and], secondly, the Single-Magistrate Court acquitted Mr. Rodolfo Montiel of committing a crime against health and consequently, reduced his sentence.” 189. The investigation promoted by the victims into the allegations of torture committed against them was conducted by military authorities, since Article 57(II)(a) of the Military Justice Code establishes that the crimes against military discipline are those that are committed by military personnel in active service or in connection with active service. 1. Ex officio investigation by the ordinary courts 190. During the early stages of their detention, Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel presented various complaints of torture committed against them. It has been noted that although the statements rendered before the Public Prosecutor’s Office on May 4, 1999, made no reference to such actions, 285 on May 6, 1999, the victims reported to the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office that they had been beaten while at the Army base. 286 Likewise, on May 7, 1999, in the presence of the Criminal Court of the Mina Judicial District, they described various forms of abuse suffered while in custody of the Army. 287 Subsequently, on July 13, 1999, the victims amplified their preliminary statements, 288 repeating that they had been subjected to degrading treatment and threats by state agents in order to make them sign a confession (supra paras. 134 and 175). Those statements were further amplified on December 23, 1999 before the Fifth District Court. 289 191. Notwithstanding these statements, on August 26, 1999, the defense asked the Fifth District Judge to order the Public Prosecutor’s Office to investigate the allegations of torture, isolation and unlawful detention to which Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel were subjected at the Army facilities. 290 Thus, on August 31, 1999, the Fifth District Judge ordered the Public Prosecutor’s Office to investigate those allegations 291 and on October 1, 1999, the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office of Coyuca de Catalán, in the state of Guerrero, launched the Preliminary Inquiry (supra para. 74). 285 8199. 286 9785. Statement of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel of May 4, 1999, supra note 142, pages 8198 to Statements of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel of May 6, 1999, supra note 132, pages 9781 and 287 Preliminary statements of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel of May 7, 1999, supra note 144, pages 9836 to 9837 and 9841. 288 Cf. Expansion of the preliminary statement of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel of July 13, 1999, supra note 145, pages 10036 to 10041. 289 Cf. Expansion of the statements of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel of December 23, 1999, supra note 67, pages 10360 to 10368. 290 10158. 291 10163. Cf. Constitutional confrontation hearings of August 26, 1999, supra note 86, pages 10157 and Cf. Court order of August 31, 1999 by the Fifth District Court, supra note 87, page 10162 to 72