3 María Velasco Rodríguez suffered various forms of physical, verbal, and psychological violence, sexual attacks, oral rape, and vaginal rape using the fingers, all committed by police officers. 11. Regarding the alleged victims arrested in San Salvador Atenco on May 4, 2006, the petitioners claim that they w ere all detained arbitrarily and that Mariana Selvas Gómez, an ethnology student at the National School of Anthropology and History, and Georgina Edith Rosales Gutiérrez, an employee of the Mexican Social Security Institute, suffered various kinds of physical, verbal, and psychological violence and sexual assault at the hands of the police. They further contend that Claudia Hernández Martínez (a student of political science at the National Autonomous University of Mexico), Suhelen Gabriela Cuevas Jaramillo (a journalism student from the University of the Valley of Mexico), Patricia Torres Linares (a student at the National Autonomous University of Mexico ’ s Faculty of Political and Social Sciences), and Norma Aidé Jiménez Osorio (also a stu dent) w ere subjected, by police officers, to various forms of physical, verbal, and psychological violence, sexual assault, and vaginal rape w ith the fingers. In addition, Bárbara Italia Méndez Moreno, a w orker w ith the New Life Foundation, allegedly suffered different kinds of physical, verbal, and psychological violence, sexual assault, and vaginal rape w ith the fingers and other objects, at the hands of police officers. 12. As a result of these incidents, domestic proceedings w ere brought at the federal an d state levels. According to the petitioners, the investigations w ere deficient, plagued w ith delays, and brought for the w rong offenses, “ trivializing the human rights violations” suffered by the alleged victims and giving rise to impunity. They hold that the failure to investigate and punish the persons responsible show cases the lack of due diligence that prevails in incidents involving violence against w omen. 13. The petitioners report that at the federal level, on May 16, 2006, the office of the Special Prosecutor for Crimes Involving Acts of Violence against Women – w hich in 2008 w as renamed the office of the Special Prosecutor for Crimes of Violence against Women and Human Trafficking (FEVIMTRA) – (hereinafter “ FEVIM” ) began an ex officio investigation (AP/FEVIM/03/052006) for “ public and notorious acts” in order to examine the alleged abuses committed against the w omen in Texcoco and San Salvador Atenco on May 3 and 4, 2006. They report that on May 17 of that year, the PRODH Center presented the Special Prosecutor’ s office w ith a complaint and registered as a representative to assist in the proceedings, and that all the alleged victims lodged and ratified criminal complaints w ith the FEVIM. They further say that on July 13, 2009, the FEVIM declined jurisdiction on behalf of the office of the Attorney General for Justice of the state of México (hereinafter “ México State Attorney General’ s Office” ); this w as, claim the petitioners, in spite of acknow ledging the existence of torture and the participation of police officers in the facts, w hich make it a federal matter. 14. As for the investigations at the state level, the petitioners claim that on May 10, 2006, the First Panel of the Directorate of Responsibilities of the México State Attorney General’ s office initiated ex officio preliminary inquiry TOL/DR/I/466/2006 against the individuals responsible for the incidents of May 3 and 4 in Texcoco and San Salvador Atenco, covering any and all persons w ho w ere victims of the facts. Those proceedings w ere combined w ith preliminary inquiry TOL/DR/I/470/2006, begun on May 11, 2006, as a result of the ex officio complaint filed by the National Human Rights Commission (hereinafter “ the CNDH” ). 15. In connection w ith the formalities pursued, the petitioners report that on May 12, 2006, personnel from the office of the México State Attorney General visited the Santiaguito Social Readaptation Center, w here five of the alleged victims w ere being held, in order for them to ratify the sexual assault allegations. According to the petitioners, the medical examinations carried out w ere not done by experts trained in dealing w ith w omen w ho had suffered sexual violence. On June 13, 2006, some of the alleged victims w ho had been released w ere summoned by the First Panel for Public Servants’ Responsibilities to ratify their complaints and, upon their arrival, w ere presented