38 agents had really been unable, both physically and materially, to transfer the alleged victims “they could [have] remedied this deficiency when the agent of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Common Jurisdiction arrived at that community, assisted by members of the Judicial Police under his command; or, otherwise, they could place them at his disposal when they arrived at the military headquarters in Altamirano, Guerrero.”137 99. In addition, it is worth noting that the legal counsel of the alleged victims, in the framework of the domestic criminal proceedings, raised the issue of noncompliance with the reasonable term to bring them before a competent authority, and that Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel were never at the headquarters of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Arcelia; therefore, they questioned the authenticity of this record in the judicial case file (infra para. 149). Specifically, the representatives argued that the authorities “pretended to perform actions to justify the subsequent apprehension of [Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel] and accused them of crimes that they did not commit”, particularly regarding “the actions performed by the agent of the Public Prosecutor’s Office [of Arcelia on May 4, 1999], given that [Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel] were never physically taken to the offices of said authority.” 100. The Court observes that, at the domestic level, some judges ruled on those allegations.138 Regardless of what was mentioned by the domestic judges, the Tribunal considers that the State’s argument grounded on the specific orography of Pizotla as a justification for the delay in the transfer of detainees before the competent authority is not convincing because: i) there are flight logs of some Air Force helicopters that carried out activities in the area on May 3, 1999; ii) the military personnel responsible for the operation had a radio station and 4 vehicles, and iii) given the military presence in Pizotla, the demand of control mechanisms over the detention activities that could be carried out by the military agents should be greater. [...] whereby he reported to the Commander of Air Base number 7 of the Air Force, the air support provided during those dates to the 35th Military Zone; b) the military personnel, “when they left from their military headquarters on May 1, 1999, with the order to investigate a gang (‘gavilla’), before and after the operation [...] had a radio station and 4 vehicles available, therefore they had the possibility of implementing the necessary mechanisms to promptly notify the agent of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the facts occurred [...], and c) “[on] May 3, 1999, in the 35th Military Zone, the Mexican Air Force commissioned the crew of the Bell helicopter with plate number 1117 to transport a military passenger to said Military Zone, in order to locate thirty-three poppy plantations and one marihuana plantation.” Cf. NCHR. Recommendation N° 8/2000 of July 14, 2000, supra note 89, pages 8443 to 8444. 137 138 Cf. NCHR. Recommendation N° 8/2000 of July 14, 2000, supra note 89, folio 8448. Some of the domestic judges considered “reasonable” or “tolerable” the delay observed in the instant case to bring the alleged victims before the competent authorities. Thus, according to the lower court judgment, the delay was reasonable because it only implied a delay of six minutes. According to said judgment: “although the Agent of the Public Prosecutor’s Office […] in Arcelia […] became aware of the facts [...] at [6:00 p.m. on May 4, 1999], even when the legal detention of the accused was decreed at [6:30 p.m.] of the same day, and that his counterpart in the Federation residing in Coyuca de Catalán, Guerrero began instituting actions in this regard at [11:45 p.m.] on [May 5, 1999]; given that the Public Prosecutor’s Office is a unique and indivisible entity, it is taken as parameter to begin counting the term established by the aforementioned precept 16 of the Constitution at [6:00 p.m. of May 4, 1999].” Consequently, according to the Judge of first instance, “the referred timeframe of [48] hours of the Public Prosecutor’s Office expired at [6:00 p.m. of May 6, 1999].” Consequently, “the term that was said to be exceeded only by [6] minutes, is deemed more or less tolerable and insufficient to consider it to be a prolonged detention, taking into account that the detainees did not have any communication or contact with any person, or it is deemed that there was some sort of physical or moral coercion against them.” Cf. Judgment issued on August 28, 2000 by the First Unitary Tribunal, supra note 75, folios 12161 to 12163. The criminal amparo ruling indicated, again that "there was no excessive and unwarranted detention on the part of the captors" To this end, the court indicated that “from the records of the case, it does not spring that when the military officers went to Pizotla, Guerrero, they had a means of transportation.” It further alleged that “the military officers could not leave said place that was the scene of the crime, inasmuch as due to the death of one of the persons, they had the obligation to remain in there […] until the arrival of […] the Agent of the Public Prosecutor’s Office.” Cf. Judgment issued on August 14, 2002 by the Second Collegiate Tribunal, supra note 84, folio 14441.