that reason, both a fair trial and access to judicial guarantees under the terms of the American Convention were denied. 24. The petitioners further request that the Mexican State adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure effective observance of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention, in order to prevent any authorities, including the military, from continuing to exceed their powers. 25. Regarding the criminal justice system, the petitioners allege that it guaranteed neither swift nor prompt justice inasmuch as the victims were denied any possibility of knowing about the progress or outcome of the trial, given that Mirey Trueba’s family was not informed of the status of the proceeding nor, in spite of their efforts, was any contact made with them for a period of two years and 11 months. 26. The petitioners also hold that the State has denied them access to justice since it expected the relatives themselves to advance the proceedings. They say that the State expected them to become third-party plaintiffs in the proceeding along with the Public Prosecution Service, which was their right, a situation that apparently did not come about due to the 30 hours distance between the very poor rural farming town where the family of Mirey Trueba live and the nearest military judge. They say that, in spite of being financially and materially unable to obtain access to justice, the relatives of Mirey Trueba decided to grant power of attorney to COSYDHAC for the necessary purposes in the proceeding. They claim that at one time the authorities reportedly accepted the intervention of the representatives as both the Public Prosecution Service and the competent military judge communicated with them in connection with information requested on March 16, 1999. However, they report that when, on May 11, 2000, the representatives requested information by means of a letter addressed to the Military Prosecution Service, the latter replied that they should address their request to the National Human Rights Commission, which agency had reportedly declared on November 30, 1998 that it lacked jurisdiction in the case. With that, according to the petitioners, Mirey Trueba’s next of kin were denied what little participation they had enjoyed until then in the proceeding. 27. The petitioners also express their willingness to submit to a future friendly settlement agreement, which would include moral damages, a public acknowledgement of the State’s responsibility, an effective and impartial investigation of the incident, and guarantees of non-repetition; however, no such agreement has yet materialized.5 They hold that although the alleged victim’s father received an amount of money as compensation under the agreement he signed with the authorities on September 17, 2002, the petitioners note their 5 Petitioners’ communication of December 10, 2002. 6