III. A. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES Position of the petitioner 6. The petitioner alleges that on January 12, 2006, at about 10:30 a.m., Jorge Marcial Tzompaxtle Tecpile, Gerardo Tzompaxtle Tecpile, and Gustavo Robles López were arbitrarily arrested by elements of the Federal Police when they were on the side of the Orizaba-Fortín de las Flores Highway in Veracruz State, where their car had had mechanical problems. According to the petitioner, the three alleged victims were traveling in the car with two other persons whom they did not know, but whom they had picked up. They said that when the federal officers approached to question them, the other two persons left the scene and did not return, leaving some of their belongings in the car. 7. The petitioner affirms that the agents arrested the alleged victims without informing them of what crime they were accused. The petitioner says they were taken to the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office of Orizaba, Veracruz, where they arrived at about 7 p.m. that same day, although it was only 13 km from the place they were arrested. The petitioner says that on that date the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office ordered their detention and began proceedings against them for the crime of bribery, identified as PGR/VER/ORI/2006. 8. The petitioner alleges that they were held incommunicado for two days without being informed of the charges against them, and that on January 14, 2006, they were transferred without cause to the offices of the Subprocuraduría Especializada en Investigación de Delincuencia Organizada [Organized Crime Special Investigation Branch](hereinafter, “SEIDO”) of the Office of the Prosecutor General (hereinafter, “PGR”) in the Federal District, where they made a statement to the Specialized Unit for Kidnapping Investigations without the presence of counsel. In that unit they were linked to “an alleged crime of kidnapping a Senator,” although they had initially been arrested for bribery. The petitioner says that on the night of January 15, an agent of the Specialized Unit for Investigation of Terrorism, Hoarding, and Arms Trafficking (hereinafter, “UEITA”) appeared at the SEIDO facility and printed several Internet articles linking the alleged victims to the guerrilla groups “Popular Revolutionary Army” (hereinafter, “EPR”) and Popular Revolutionary Command “The Fatherland is First.” The petitioner says that on January 16, the head of SEIDO ordered their release for lack of evidence linking them to the alleged kidnapping. 9. The petitioner says that nevertheless, before they could leave the SEIDO offices, agents of the Federal Investigation Agency (hereinafter, “AFI”) took them to the UEITA, telling them that they had to sign some more documents. Once they were there, according to the petitioner, the alleged victims were told that they were accused of violating the Federal Law against Organized Crime, for the purpose of committing terrorist acts. The head of the UEITA allegedly ordered their detention and “made them sign a document that they were being held (under arraigo) for 90 days for the crime of ‘terrorism.’” On March 31, 2006, with no warrant, there were allegedly searches of the home of the mother of Jorge Marcial and Gerardo Tzompaxtle Tecpile, as well as the house and store of Maximino Tzompaxtle Tecpile, brother of the alleged victims of the same name. 10. The petitioner argues that it was not until April 11, 2006, that a judge, the head of the Third District Court for Federal Criminal Proceedings in the Federal District, decreed the detention of the alleged victims for the probable crime of terrorism, and it was only on April 17, 2006, that the officer of the Federal Prosecutor’s Office attached to the UEITA put the alleged victims at the disposal of that judge. The petitioner says that on April 22, 2006, the Third District Court for Federal Criminal Proceedings in the Federal District ordered formal incarceration, so they were taken to the North Men’s Preventive Prison in the Federal District. According to the petitioner, the alleged victims filed a motion to appeal that decision to the First Circuit’s First Criminal Court, identified as number 221/2006. On February 16, 2007, the Court reportedly decided on the appeal by upholding the charges for violation of the Federal Law against Organized Crime and lifting the suspension of the accused’s political rights. The petitioner adds that on March 13, 2007, they were transferred to the Social Readaptation Center in Amatlán de los Reyes, Veracruz, to begin their trial. 11. The petitioner says that on May 14, 2008, the Twelfth District Court Judge in Veracruz sentenced them to four years in prison for the offense of organized crime and three months for bribery. It says

Select target paragraph3