10. In this regard, the representatives stated that, indeed “on March 7, 2012, an expert report was produced regarding the ‘methods of injury,’ [but that] the victims and their representatives had not been given access to [this] report,” and that they understood that this report “consisted of reviewing documents already in existence to get an idea of the physical traces previously reported or detected; in other words, it does not represent a new test or evaluation, but rather a study or summary of the documents that were already in the case file.” Furthermore, the representatives argued that “[t]he delay in performing the investigation [on the part of the State] has [been due] to the insistence of the authorities in conducting a medical-psychological evaluation[,] even though both victims had provided new detailed statements to the [Office of the Prosecutor General of the Republic] to facilitate the investigation and identification of the parties responsible, and even when numerous examinations and medical evidence of torture already exist, the authorities of the [Office of the Prosecutor General of the Republic] maintained the position that, before anything else, it was necessary to perform a medical-psychological evaluation in accordance with the Istanbul Protocol for each of the victims.” Referring to the evaluation in accordance with the Istanbul Protocol, the representatives added that “with respect to Mr. Teodoro Cabrera, [it was completed] during the week of January 14 to 18 of 2013 […] [and, with respect to Mr. Rodolfo Montiel], it [was] schedule[d] for the week of February 18 to 21 of [2013].” 11. Furthermore, regarding the inclusion of the affidavit of the expert Juana Ma. Del Carmen Gutiérrez Hernandez in the record of the proceedings, the representatives argued that “this document does not represent a medical examination of the victims, but rather […] a biased summary of medical records […] that were in the file, which failed to analyze certain other tests that detected traces of torture[. In light of this, they considered that] such document is not a valid source for the investigation of torture.” Lastly, the representatives requested that the Court declare that “the State has not yet complied with the orders in the twelfth operative paragraph of the [J]udgment” and that it “urge the State of Mexico to take concrete action to comply in full and as soon as possible with the obligation to investigate the acts of torture reported by Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel.” 12. The Commission positively acknowledged “the opening of the preliminary inquiry of the ordinary courts. However, [it noted] that no significant progress has been made.” Moreover, it considered that in “relation [t]o the transfer of documents from other case files to the investigation of acts of torture, […] the only evidence from such files that should be included and assessed in the new inquiry should be that which contributes to the investigation into acts of torture.” In this regard, the Commission expressed its concern over “the lack of substantial progress in the inquiry in the more than one year since the [first] report of the State.” In addition, the Commission noted that “it hopes that […] the State will provide information regarding the progress of what it has reported so far, as well as sufficient information on the strategy it is following in the inquiry and the timeline in which it expects to achieve concrete advances.” As a final point, the Commission noted that, “the State failed to indicate whether the pending investigation has looked into the procedural irregularities that occurred during the course of the proceedings.” Considerations of the Court 6