a) in relation to the expert opinion concerning the identification of the alleged firearms, “although [the expert witnesses] did not prepare their report in written form,” 220 “this does not imply that it is invalid” in view of their appearance and their description of the firearms; b) “it is legally irrelevant that [...] the expert witnesses [...] dedicated a short amount of time,” “which is surely the result of the expertise they posses” since they work for the Federal Judicial Police”; c) “in general, firearms have [their] data engraved” which “facilitates their legal classification without the need to present the operations or tests on which their opinions were based;” d) “it is not possible to accuse the military personnel for not having brought the detainees [before a judge] without delay,” “it was less feasible to make available the instruments and objects of the crime,” and e) “in no way” can the alleged negligence “imply the inexistence of the weapons.” 221 145. The Court emphasizes that this Second Collegiate Court acquitted Mr. Montiel Flores of the crime of carrying a ”22 caliber Remington rifle,” given that, in one of his statements he “emphatically denied” carrying such a rifle and because Mr. Cabrera’s testimony did not incriminate him in this respect. Nevertheless, the Second Collegiate Court confirmed Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel’s criminal responsibility for carrying firearms intended for the exclusive use of the Army, Navy and Air Force, with respect to the firearms that they did admit to carrying in their statement of May 6, 1999. 222 146. As regards the sodium rhodizonate test that showed positive on the victims’ hands, 223 the First Single Magistrate Court indicated that this test was performed in accordance with legal requirements and that it had not been “invalidated.” 224 Regarding the fact that “the [defendants] were lying in the river water,” the trial court indicated that “only they stated this, but there is no data to confirm this fact, 220 The expert witnesses stated that they has seen “a semi-automatic pistol, .380 caliber, Pietro Bereta, manufactured by Browning Arms Company; a .22-caliber Remington rifle, Model 550-1; a .22 rifle, bold action, with no serial number or brand; a .22 caliber Remington rifle, model 550-1. Possessing or carrying these weapons is allowed, provided the provisions and restrictions established in the Federal Firearms and Explosives Act are observed, a crime defined and punished in Article 9, section I and II second paragraph[,] respectively, in relation to Article 81 first paragraph of said Act. Moreover, the 45caliber Colt semi-automatic pistol, serial number 85900G70; and the 7.62 mm M1A Springfield Army rifle, serial number 035757, are intended for the exclusive use of the Army, Navy and Mexican Air Force, and their possession is a crime prescribed and punished in Articles 11. b) and 11.c), in relation to Article 83 sections II and III, respectively, of [said] Federal Firearms and Explosives Act.” Cf. Expert Report regarding the identification of the firearms, May 6, 1999 (Preliminary Inquiry N° 33/CC/99) (File of attachments to the answer brief, volume XXIII, page 9791). 221 Cf. Judgment of August 21, 2002 issued by the First Collegiate Tribunal, supra note 148, pages 14593 and 14596. 222 Cf. Judgment of August 21, 2002 issued by the First Collegiate Tribunal, supra note 148, pages 15321 and 15324. 223 On May 4, 1999, an expert witness conducted sodium rhodizonate tests on samples taken from both hands of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel. In his report, said expert established that: “[a]ccording to the results obtained from the analysis of the samples of the detainees [...], it is confirmed that [Mr. Cabrera García] HAD lead and barium residue on both of his hands of the type left by discharging a firearm. It was established that [Mr. Montiel Flores] only had this residue on his right hand, of the type left by discharging a firearm; the test is negative regarding his left hand.” Cf. Official letter N° 067/99 of May 4, 1999, containing the expert opinion of chemical expert Rey Yañez Sanchez, rendered before the Agent of the Public Prosecutor's Office, Judicial Department of Cuautemoc, Arcelia, Guerrero (File of attachments to the answer brief, volume XXIII, page 9729). 224 Cf. Judgment of October 26, 2000 issued by the First Single-Magistrate Tribunal, supra note 77, page 12015. 57