6 22. The petitioners contend that in May 2006, the Office of the Public Prosecutor scheduled a hearing for the introduction of new evidence to be introduced by official experts. In light of this situation, they claim that the family members brought an appeal before the Seventh Chamber for Criminal Matters of the District Court arguing that the amparo had been granted in order to process the evidence introduced by them and not to hear additional evidence. They allege that on May 31, 2006, the Judge of the Seventh Chamber for Criminal Matters of the District Court denied the appeal and, therefore, on June 5, 2006, another appeal was filed, which was adjudicated by the Second Panel for Criminal Matters of the First Circuit Court in favor of the appellants, ordering the Seventh Chamber of the District Court to grant leave to appeal. 23. The petitioners note that on October 31, 2006, the Seventh Chamber of the District Court for Amparo in Criminal Matters ordered the expert evidence offered by the appellants to be admitted and that no additional evidence be introduced. Notwithstanding, the petitioners contend that, on May 12, 2007, after failing to conduct an adequate examination of the evidence offered by the family members, the Coordinator of Prosecuting Attorneys of the Office of the Public Prosecutor once again proposed to “not bring criminal action.” They allege that on August 19, 2007, Javier Torres Cruz and his uncle Isaías Torres, both peasant farmers from the state of Guerrero, made statements to the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney naming individuals involved in the murder of Mrs. Digna Ochoa, including, as the mastermind behind the crime, a local political boss and rancher of Sierra de Petatlán, Guerrero, who allegedly had Mrs. Digna Ochoa murdered for having uncovered a clandestine “saw mill” located on the ejido [community property] that was part of his property. They assert that after filing the complaint, Mr. Javier Torres was kidnapped and reappeared days later with signs of torture on his body. The petitioners contend that as a result of the aforementioned incidents, a request was made to the IACHR to issue precautionary measures on behalf of Mr. Javier Torres and his family and that, even though the IACHR did grand the measures that were requested, the State did not provide effective protection of the witness. 24. 25. They allege that on September 17, 2007, the review unit of the Coordinating Office of Prosecuting Attorneys of the Office of the Public Prosecutor of the PGJDF rejected the proposal to “not bring criminal action” and issued instructions to continue the investigation. They note that on August 14, 2008, the preliminary investigation was transferred to the Central Office of the Assistant Attorney General for Preliminary Investigations, and was ultimately sent to the Central Office of the Prosecuting Attorney for Homicide Investigations of the PDJDF. 26. The petitioners assert that on February 12, 2010, an alleged mastermind of the murder of Mrs. Digna Ochoa was arrested. They claim that the Office of the Public Prosecutor interviewed him and showed him three newspaper clippings that referred to his involvement, to which the alleged mastermind responded “that it was false and that I have nothing to add.” The petitioners contend that the Office of the Public Prosecutor did not thoroughly interview him based on the version of the facts that appeared in the case file linking him to the incidents. 27. They argue that on August 20, 2010, the deputy of the Office of the Public Prosecutor proposed for the third time to “not bring criminal action.” They state that the family members filed a motion for reconsideration of decision against this proposal. They note that on March 14, 2011, they were notified of the decision of the Coordinator of the Prosecuting Attorneys of the Office of the Public Prosecutor, which rejected their arguments and authorized for the third time the decision to “not bring criminal action.” They note that they filed a new amparo claim for constitutional relief against this