responsibility of the Council that examined [the] case.” The second report, which “concerned the crew members, requested that the First Naval Zone initiate the corresponding procedures given that there was a presumption of a crime, a matter that no longer corresponded to the Inspectorate.” He also pointed out that he interviewed one of the crew members, FCh. 134. From the foregoing, the following can be inferred: a) that the officers and crew members made statements to SERINT, which served as the basis for the reports prepared by the Administrative Affairs Inspection Commission, among them FCh was interviewed; b) the names of the officers mentioned in that report coincide with the names of the crew members who, according to the CEV report, were interrogated and allegedly tortured by other officers so that they would testify against Mr. Grijalva; c) among the statements of those officers is the statement of FCh, in which he originally denounced several irregularities and made accusations against Mr. Grijalva, which he later retracted, arguing that at the time of his interview, he was subjected to severe pressure to sign a document previously prepared against Mr. Grijalva, and d) that the pressures and harassment denounced by FCh were never investigated, nor were the acts of torture to which the sailors who testified against Mr. Grijalva were allegedly subjected, as mentioned in the CEV report. 135. This Court also notes that in his statement made on July 5, 1995, before the military criminal judge of the First Naval Zone, Mr. Grijalva Bueno stated that he “submit[ted] a cassette to be added to the proceedings and as testimony of the statements made by Corporal [FCh], Sergeant [FB] and Sergeant [HM], which shows how the Intelligence Service directed, pressured and tortured the aforementioned crew members so that they would speak against [him].” Likewise, in his statement given on October 19, 1998, before the military criminal judge of the First Naval Zone, Mr. Grijalva stated that “[i]n the videos submitted as evidence in [the] proceedings, there is a statement made by a former agent of the Intelligence Service [FCh], in which he indicates that he was ordered to falsify documents against Captain Vicente Grijalva and the group of crew members who were punished for the reports that he was forced to make, and which formed the basis for the INSGAR reports.” The foregoing account was reiterated in his statement before this Court, in which he stated that “[a]fter October 1992, they also began to torture the sergeants, among them HM, and the sergeants of the Intelligence Service: [FB], [FA], [FCh].” Therefore, the Court concludes that the judge became aware of the irregularities committed at the time of receiving the statements of some of the crew members, contained in the reports. 136. This Court finds that in the conviction issued on March 13, 2000, the court took into consideration the report of the commission of the General Inspectorate of the Navy, which contains various irregularities, including the fact that it took into account the statements of crewmen who were allegedly subjected to coercion or torture, contained in the SERINT reports. Furthermore, based on the statement of one of its authors, Mr. JL, the Court also finds that the facts contained in the report of the General Inspectorate of the Navy regarding Mr. Grijalva’s alleged criminal conduct were not proven, but merely confirmed that the allegations made were real, and that there were presumptions of responsibility. Finally, the Court notes that the State itself acknowledged the irregularities in the SERINT reports, due to the involvement of various naval authorities who had a direct interest in Mr. Grijalva’s dismissal. 35