4 w ith an album containing photographs of officers w ho had participated in the operations. The petitioners state that tw o of the alleged victims, Ana María Velasco Rodríguez and María Patricia Romero Hernández, w ere able to identify their assailants. 16. They report that on April 4, 2007, the suspension and archiving of state proceedings TOL/DR/I/466/2006 w as ordered until new evidence of torture could be found; according to the petitioners, this w as in spite of the findings of the CNDH, the medical certificates, the statements given, and other elements. 17. The petitioners report that in spite of lodging a number of requests, they w ere denied access to the case file covering t he state-level preliminary inquiry; they w ere only given a summary case file from preliminary inquiry TOL/DR/1/466/06, enclosed w ith the main file, because, they claim, the Public Prosecution Service told them that the remaining volumes had either been archived or w ere w ith the Investigating Commission of the Supreme Court, etc. 18. They state that the case file of the preliminary inquiry by the FEVIM (federal jurisdiction) w as received by the local justice system through the México State Attorney General’ s Office on July 15, 2009, and that it w as not until March 10, 2010, that the office of the Assistant Attorney General sent the General Directorate of Inspectors the preliminary inquiry for its “ pursuit ” and “ determination in accordance w ith the law . ” In spit e of the time that has passed, they maintain that the investigations have not progressed. They also claim that despite having registered as representatives to assist in the proceedings, they w ere denied access to the investigations. 19. They also report that the alleged victims have also filed individual complaints, w hich, they claim, have so far been ineffect ive. The state authorities have pursued criminal action in only tw o of the 11 cases. Specifically, in the case of Ana María Velasco Rodríguez, a prosecut ion w as brought against a police officer w hom she identified as one of her assailants. In connection w ith this, they note that under the criminal law in force in the state of México, coercing a person to perform fellatio did not constitute rape at the time of the incident, and so the officer w as prosecuted for the crime of “ lew d acts.” They state that the alleged assailant w as acquitted of all the charges on February 19, 2009, under an amparo resolution that voided the judgment and decision handed dow n by t he appeal court that had convicted him, on the grounds that the officer ’ s criminal liability had not been established in full despite – according to the petitioners – having been identified by the alleged victim. 20. In the case of María Patricia Romero Hernández, they report that on June 15, 2006, 21 police officers from the state of México w ere arraigned for the crime of abuse of authority (proceedings 59/06, before the Criminal Court of Tenango del Valle), but not for the crime of torture. They state that t he agent of the Public Prosecution Service in this case on various occasions treated the alleged victim as a complainant and not as a victim, w hich curtailed her participation in the proceedings. According to the petitioners, most of them w ere dismissed from the proceedings and, on February 19, 2010, the first -instance judge handed dow n acquittals for all the defendants. In addition, they claim that the complainant and the assisting representative w ere not allow ed to participate in the proceedings. 21. The petitioners state that although torture is a criminal offense under both federal and state law , the inquiries w ere opened to investigate the offenses of “ abuse of authority” or “ lew d acts.” According to the petitioners, the authorities do not investigate torture allegations. Also as information they note that the office of the Attorney General of the Republic, betw een January 1994 and July 2010, reported tw o convictions for torture and 81 judgments in abuse of authority cases. 22. The petitioners report that the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation investigated the facts of this case through an Investigating Commission and issued a nonbinding resolution