7 decision before the Seventh Chamber of the District Court for Amparo in Criminal Matters in the Federal District [of Mexico City], which was denied on August 19, 2011 stating that the obligation of the Office of the Public Prosecutor was to receive and examine evidence and that the Office of the Public Prosecutor still has the monopoly over bringing criminal actions. 28. The petitioners state that they pursued and exhausted all domestic remedies available to them as required under Article 46 of the Convention; however, these remedies were not adequate or effective. They claim that the State violated Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention inasmuch as it did not ensure a serious and thorough investigation within a reasonable period of time, in order to determine the causes and circumstances of the threats leveled at Mrs. Ochoa and her eventual death. They contend that ever since the initial investigations, multiple irregularities linked to the examination of the crime scene and the handling of the body were committed and that the State has not duly investigated a variety of leads that emerged over the course of the investigation. 29. With respect to the irregularities at the scene of the crime, the petitioners note, among other things, that there were failures in the control over the scene of the crime; the experts made farfetched interpretations of their test results; the authorities did not establish whether the scene of the crime had been tampered with nor did they establish with accuracy what persons had entered the crime scene prior to the arrival of the assistant attorneys of the Office of the Public Prosecutor. As to the examination of the body of Mrs. Ochoa, they argue that no appropriate description was taken of the cadaveric phenomena nor of the body temperature in order to know whether or not the body had been moved from its original position. They contend that no detailed description of the injuries was recorded, such as those noticed on the thighs and neck, which would have made it possible to determine whether Mrs. Ochoa was assaulted prior to her death. They also claim that the exact spots where the blood was located was not determined either, nor was a suitable examination conducted either to verify whether the blood was the result of splattering as a consequence of the body being moved or of a sudden shot. 30. They assert that the authorities consistently refused to admit the evidence offered by the family as an aid in solving the case and that, consequently, the family members were compelled by the Office of the Public Prosecutor to pursue legal remedies to question the refusal to continue the investigation. They contend that the proceedings were marred by bias and partiality. Specifically, they claim that the Office of the Public Prosecutor issued several decisions to “not bring criminal action,” and every time this was done, even though doubt was cast on these decisions by the additional evidence offered by the family members, the decision would be reviewed by the Office of the Public Prosecutor itself, which is the body of final review of the decision, and therefore the full range of evidence could not come to be examined in the case by any criminal court judge. The petitioners allege that the official expert opinions supporting the theory of suicide are based on Mrs. Ochoa presenting a neurological disturbances; that in the library of her office a book dealing with issues of death was found and that she had given instructions to her sister as to how to dispose of her estate in the event of her death. The petitioners allege that that evidence is not technically enough to discard the theory of homicide and that said information was inappropriately leaked to the media. They argue that the authorities did not thoroughly investigate the origin of the weapon that caused the death of Mrs. Ochoa and that they arrived at the conclusion that the weapon belonged to her because she had mentioned to her brother that she had acquired a weapon in order to protect her residence. The petitioners claim that there is expert testimony that flatly rules out that Mrs. Digna Ochoa committed suicide because no exploded gunpowder residue was found on her hands or her gloves. 31.