5 Mrs. Ochoa presented “two irregular-shaped dark ecchymosis’ on the anterior-internal face, middle third of the right thigh” and that it was established that a shot had been fired into one of the chairs that was located near the place where the body was found. They assert that the body of Mrs. Ochoa had red-color latex gloves on her hands, and a white powder, apparently flour, on both hands, was also scattered around the scene. They assert that a note was also found at the scene that read “PROS SONS OF BITCHES, IF YOU CONTINUE ANOTHER ONE WILL GET KNOCKED OFF, WARNING THIS IS NO LIE.” 18. The petitioners note that in the forensic expert’s report conducted by PGDJ experts on December 20, 2001, it was concluded that there was a struggle at the scene of the crime, because a button of Mrs. Ochoa’s shirt was pulled off and her hairband was lying on the ground. They also claim that in the preliminary findings and reenactment of the events conducted by the PGJDF experts, it was established that Mrs. Digna Ochoa had been the victim of a homicide. Nonetheless, they assert that on June 28, 2002, one of the PGJDF experts conducted a psychological analysis of Mrs. Digna Ochoa and came to the conclusion that “she was in a vulnerable enough state to attempt to take her own life.” They contend that according to the report of official experts, the suicide theory was boosted by the fact that the weapon used in the homicide was alleged to belong to Mrs. Ochoa herself. The petitioners claim that the preliminary investigation was transferred on August 1, 2002 to a Special Prosecuting Attorney in order to specifically investigate the death of Mrs. Digna Ochoa. They allege that on May 6, 2003, the representative of the family of Mrs. Digna Ochoa offered forensic chemical and crime scene evidence to the experts, which was rejected on May 7, 2003, and they were required to clarify the purpose or objective that they were pursuing in offering such evidence. They claim that after clarifying the purpose of the evidence they were introducing, on May 19, 2003, the Office of the Special Prosecuting Attorney once again refused to accept said evidence noting that it should have been approved by the official experts previously. The petitioners note that despite the refusal to accept the additional evidence, the official experts determined that it would be irrelevant to examine the new evidence. They note that on July 9, 2003, the Office of the Public Prosecutor stated that the additional evidence being offered was unnecessary. 19. The petitioners assert that subsequently, a new official experts report concluded with regard to the theory and the reenactment of events, that Mrs. Ochoa had “staged a suicide.” They contend that based on the foregoing conclusion, on July 18, 2003, the Office of Special Prosecutor conferred with the Coordinators of the Office of the Public Prosecutor about the proposal to “not bring criminal action”, and this proposal was approved on September 17, 2003. They note that on October 3, 2003, the family members, who had offered the new evidence, filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision with the Coordinator of Prosecuting Attorneys of the Office of the Public Prosecutor, which was denied on October 29, 2003, and the decision to “not bring criminal action” was authorized. They state that the same appellants filed for special constitutional relief through amparo proceedings against this ruling on November 19, 2003 before Chamber “B” of the First District Court for Amparo in Criminal Matters, which was denied on July 22, 2004. They further note that an appeal was filed against the denial of amparo with the Second Panel for Criminal Matters of the First Circuit Court, which was adjudicated on February 24, 2005, granting the constitutional relief (amparo) against the effects of the ruling of October 29, 2003. 20. They contend that under the amparo judgment, the decision giving the authorization to “not bring criminal action” was vacated and the expert evidence offered by the family members was admitted. They also state that on April 21, 2006, the experts nominated by the family members issued their respective opinions that it was likely that Mrs. Digna Ochoa had been the victim of a homicide. 21.