facilities. 86 In response to this request, on August 31, 1999, the Fifth District Judge ordered the Public Prosecutor’s Office to investigate the facts denounced. 87 On October 1, 1999, the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office of Coyuca de Catalán, state of Guerrero, opened a Preliminary Inquiry into the complaints made by Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel. 88 On November 5, 1999, the Attorney General’s Office of the Republic (hereinafter, the “PGR”) announced that it did not have jurisdiction to investigate the crime of torture and transferred the matter to the Office of the Prosecutor General for Military Justice (hereinafter “PGJM”), 89 arguing that those potentially responsible were soldiers on active service. 90 On June 13, 2000, the PGJM ordered the inquiry into torture to be closed under “writ of reserve of the file” (administrative suspension), based on the military investigator’s opinion that no evidence had been produced to prove torture. 91 75. Concurrently with the above, on May 14, 1999 Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel filed a complaint in relation to the facts of the instant case before the National Human Rights Commission (hereinafter “CNDH”). On July 14, 2000, the CNDH determined that “military personnel violated the principle of legality and right to liberty of Messrs. Rodolfo Montiel and Teodoro Cabrera García, […] [and given] the continued silence [on the part of the PGJM]”, 92 the CNDH presumed that the allegations of torture were true, in keeping with Articles 38 93 and 70 94 of the CNDH Law. 95 Accordingly, it recommended that “the Inspection Unit and Office of the Comptroller General of the Mexican Army and Air Force institute an administrative investigation against the members of the Mexican Army who authorized, supervised, implemented, and executed the operation from May 1 to May 4, 1999.” 96 It also recommended that the Attorney General’s Office launch a preliminary investigation into the members of the Mexican Army who authorized, supervised, implemented, and executed the operation. Likewise, it urged the Attorney General of Military Justice to hand down the measures necessary to 86 Cf. Constitutional confrontations of August 26, 1999 before the Fifth District Court (Criminal Case 61/99) (File of attachments to the answer brief, volume XXIV, pages 10157 to 10158). 87 Cf. Court order of August 31, 1999 of the Fifth District Court of the state of Guerrero (Criminal Case 61/99) (File of attachments to the answer brief, volume XXIV, page 10162). 88 Cf. Court order of October 1, 1999 (Preliminary Inquiry N° 91/CC/99) (File of attachments to the answer brief, volume XII, page 4842). 89 “On December 14, 1999 [the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Coyuca Catalán, Guerrero] assigned the case to its military counterpart in zone [35/a] Military Zone, due to lack of jurisdiction” Cf. CNDH. Recommendation No. 8/2000 of July 14, 2000. Case of the inhabitants of Pizotla Community, municipality of Ajuchitlán del Progreso, Guerrero, and of Messrs. Rodolfo Montiel Flores and Teodoro García Cabrera (File of attachments to the application, volume XX, pages 8434 to 8461). 90 Cf. CNDH. Recommendation N° 8/2000 of July 14, 2000, supra note 89, pages 8434 to 8461. 91 Cf. CNDH. Recommendation N° 8/2000 of July 14, 2000, supra note 89, pages 8434 to 8461. 92 Cf. CNDH. Recommendation N° 8/2000 of July 14, 2000, supra note 89, pages 8434 to 8461. 93 Article 38.- The report to be presented by the authorities in question, as the responsible parties against which a complaint or claim may be brought, must include background information on the matter, the grounds and motives for the actions or omissions being challenged, if such grounds or motives exist, and the information deemed necessary to properly document the matter. Failure to submit the report or the supporting documentation, or any unjustified delay in doing so, shall result in the respective parties being held accountable and the facts of the complaint shall be deemed to be true, unless proven otherwise. 94 Article 70. - Public authorities and public servants shall be criminally and administratively liable for any actions or omissions committed in connection with the processing of complaints or grievances before the National Human Rights Commission, in accordance with the applicable constitutional and legal provisions. 95 Cf. CNDH. Recommendation N° 8/2000 of July 14, 2000, supra note 89, page 8458. 96 Cf. CNDH. Recommendation N° 8/2000 of July 14, 2000, supra note 89, page 8459. 29