03/999 and ruled that the arrest of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel was lawful, 134 and e) On Friday May 7, 1999, the Judge of the Court of First Instance of the Mina Judicial District ordered the alleged victims to be brought before the court in order to render their preliminary statements. 135 98. In this regard, in Recommendation 8/2000, the CNDH questioned the military’s alleged inability to bring the alleged victims before the competent authority, without delay, given that Air Force flight logs show than on May 3 and 4, 1999 helicopters were providing support in the 35th Military Zone, and also that the military personnel dispatched to Pizotla had a radio station and 4 vehicles. 136 Thus, in conclusion, the CNDH indicated that if military agents had really been unable, physically and materially, to transfer the alleged victims “they could [have] remedied this deficiency when the agent of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Common Jurisdiction arrived at that community, assisted by members of the Judicial Police under his command; or, they could have placed them at his disposal when they arrived at the military headquarters in Altamirano, Guerrero.” 137 99. In addition, it is worth noting that the legal counsel of the alleged victims, in the context of the domestic criminal proceedings, raised the issue of noncompliance with the reasonable term for bringing them before a competent authority, and that Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel were never at the headquarters of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Arcelia; therefore, they questioned the authenticity of this record in the judicial case file (infra para. 149). Specifically, the representatives argued that the authorities “pretended to carry out actions to justify a posteriori the arrest of [Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel] and accused them of crimes that they did not commit”, and particularly questioned “the actions of the agent of the Public Prosecutor’s Office [of Arcelia on May 4, 1999], given that [Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel] were never physically taken to the offices of said authority.” 100. The Court notes that, at the domestic level, some judges ruled on those allegations. 138 Regardless of what was stated by the domestic judges, this Court 134 Cf. Court order of the filing and ratification of the lawful detention of May 6, 1999 (Preliminary Inquiry N° 33/CC/999) (File of attachments to the answer brief, volume XXIII, pages 9827 to 9832). 135 Cf. Court order for release issued by the Judge of the First Instance Court of the Judicial District of Mina of May 7, 1999 (Case file 03/999) (File of attachments to the answer brief, volume XXIII, page 9834). 136 According to the CNDH: a) there are “flight logs of the Bell-212 helicopters with license plates 1115 and 1117, in official letters 2164 and 2188 of May 3 and 4, 1999, signed by [a] Lieutenant Coronel [...] reporting to the Commander of Air Base number 7 of the Air Force, the air support provided during those dates to the 35th Military Zone; b) the military personnel, “when they left their military headquarters on May 1, 1999, with the order to investigate a gang (‘gavilla’), before and after the operation [...] had a radio station and 4 vehicles available, therefore they had the possibility of implementing the necessary mechanisms to promptly notify the agent of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the facts occurred [...], and c) “[on] May 3, 1999, in the 35th Military Zone, the Mexican Air Force commissioned the crew of the Bell helicopter with plate number 1117 to transport a military passenger to said Military Zone, in order to locate thirty-three poppy plantations and one marihuana plantation.” Cf. CNDH. Recommendation N° 8/2000 of July 14, 2000, supra note 89, pages 8443 to 8444. 137 Cf. CNDH. Recommendation N° 8/2000 of July 14, 2000, supra note 89, page 8448. 138 Some domestic judges considered “reasonable” or “tolerable” the delay confirmed in this case in bringing the alleged victims before the competent authorities. Thus, according to the lower court judgment, the delay was reasonable because it only implied a delay of six minutes. According to that judgment: “although the Agent of the Public Prosecutor’s Office […] in Arcelia […] became aware of the facts [...] at [6:00 p.m. on May 4, 1999], even though the legal detention of the accused was ordered at [6:30 p.m.] on the same day, and that his counterpart in the Federation residing in Coyuca de Catalán, Guerrero began instituting actions in this regard at [11:45 p.m.] on [May 5, 1999]; given that the Public Prosecutor’s Office is a single and indivisible body, the aforementioned Article 16 of the Constitution is taken as parameter to begin counting the term established therein [6:00 p.m. of May 4, 37