61 Montiel had indeed recognized him and the witness is one of the employees of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Arcelia;231 c) the alleged contradictions between two soldiers who participated in the arrest and who do not agree on their answers when they are asked whether the victims were handed over to the Office of the Public Prosecutor of Arcelia, and about the caliber of the weapons that were seized. In this regard, the domestic courts considered that even though the soldiers did not agree on whether the victims were transferred to Arcelia, in the case file there are proceedings conducted on that day by the Public Prosecutor’s Office,232 and d) the alleged formal language used by Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel, even though, at the time of the facts, they could not read or write, reason for which those declarations could not be attributed to them.233 The domestic courts made no specific regarding this argument. 231 In the judgment of October 26, 2000, it was indicated that "it is unwise on the part of the accused given that they point out that such event occurred at the place of their arrest and at the military facilities, since the witness is an employee (…) of the Public Prosecutor’s Office (...) of Arcelia, Guerrero, as well as it was convincing to state that he never left said office where he works as quartermaster general.” In view of the foregoing, the Court notes that this official was, in turn, the attesting witness during the proceedings of the body removal of Mr. Salome Sanchez conducted in the municipality of Pizotla. Cf. Removal minutes, visual inspection and death certificate of May 4, 1999, supra note 65, folio 4208. In the judgment of August 21, 2002, the First Unitary Tribunal declared, in this respect, that: “and the intention of the accused is even more evident when they put forward defensive arguments and state that [said attesting witness] was one of the persons who physically attacked them at the place of their arrest; hence, in attempting to recognize him as his aggressor, it is not considered relevant that, in said proceeding, a piece of paper with information regarding the identification of the accused was found on him, even though he only served as an attesting witness of the deposition before the local prosecutor of Arcelia, Guerrero, and he indicated that he was an assistant quartermaster in said office; as such, if those who arrested them were only soldiers, it is not understandable that they attempt to note the presence of a civilian that they never mentioned in their early statements, all of which minimizes the evidentiary value of their subsequent statements and proceedings in which they sustain the same argument.”.” Cf. Judgment of October 26, 2000 issued by the First Unitary Tribunal, supra note 77, folios 15265 and 15266. 232 The Unitary Court, in the judgment of October 26, 2000, indicated that: “it is irrelevant [that the first soldier] referred, in principle, to the fact that he had no idea on what date and at what time the detained were taken to Arcelia and, subsequently, in the same proceeding, that they were never taken to that place […] insofar as [the second soldier] indicated that they were brought before the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Arcelia […], the foregoing because […] the case file contains precisely the measures adopted by such investigative official, […] from which it spring that there is no doubt about whether or not they were brought before the aforementioned authority.”.” Cf. Judgment of October 26, 2000 issued by the First Unitary Tribunal, supra note 77, folio 12083. 233 In his statement at the public hearing, Mr. Montiel indicated that “he cannot read and write" and that, due to such fact, he had to "ma[de] up a signature" when he sign[ed] the statements. Cf. Statement rendered by Mr. Rodolfo Montiel Flores at the public hearing, supra note 177. Previously, in the domestic criminal proceeding, at a confrontation hearing with the defense counsel, Mr. Montiel indicated that "the soldiers never read the briefs, that he can read a little but that Teodoro cannot.” Cf. Confrontation hearing between Mr. Rodolfo Montiel Flores and the court-appointed counsel of February 28, 2000 before the Fifth District Court of Iguala, quoted in the Judgment issued on October 26, 2000 by the First Unitary Tribunal, supra note 77, folio 11616. In his statement before a public notary, Mr. Cabrera indicated that “he cannot read nor write” Cf. Statement rendered by Mr. Teodoro Cabrera Garcia before a public notary, supra note 147, folio 1191. The foregoing was also certified by expert witness Deutsch, who indicated that Mr. Cabrera “cannot read nor write.”.” Cf. Expert opinion rendered by expert witness Ana Deustch before a public notary, supra note 174, folio 1311. At the domestic level, the defense counsel of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel indicated that "the first three statements attributed to the accused do not have value either, given that they were evidently previously made up; they did not render such statements, since the basic structure of how they were prepared is simply the same, they accept what the soldiers said, that they were carrying firearms, they self-incriminate themselves; if they are not charged with some act, they are immediately incriminated for the co-accused and untypical expressions of uneducated peasants are used.”.” Cf. Motion of Appeal filed on August 30, 2000 before the Fifth District Judge, mentioned in the Judgment issued on October 26, 2000 by the First Unitary Tribunal, supra note 77, folios 11528-11815. Moreover, a judicial authority indicated that "Rodolfo Montiel only attended first grade of primary school and he can read and write very little.”.” Cf. Judgment issued on October 26, 2000 by the First Unitary Tribunal, supra note 77, folio 12706. Furthermore, a medical certificate issued in May 2000 in relation to Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel indicated that they