65 certain officials of such locality appeared at the Battalion to draw up a record of weapons and, possibly, to issue some documents that were then presented in the criminal proceeding" and which the judges considered valid. It was indicated that all of the above was made in collusion with the defense counsels appointed by the court. The domestic courts valued these arguments and, therefore, the defense counsels and the attesting witnesses, who were part of these statements at prosecution, were called to render a testimony.246 In addition, the courts conducted confrontation procedures with the victims247 by which it was concluded that the victims had received adequate counseling. 159. In the statements rendered on May 4, 1999, the victims admitted the facts248 that the military officers presented in the accusation report against them.249 Notwithstanding, the domestic judicial instances considered that, in that statement, Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel “were duly informed of their individual guarantees, which compliance therewith corresponded to their court-appointed defense counsel to ensure like the defense counsel admitted [himself].”250 Regarding the statements rendered on May 6, the court-appointed defense counsel specified that she talked to Mr. Montiel but she could not remember for how long, that she made him some questions related to the manner in which he was arrested and which treatment was afforded by the military officers who arrested him.251 The domestic judicial instances considered that these statements of May 6, 1999, were according to the law and “with the assistance" of a court- appointed defense counsel “who was appointed to act as such by the accused themselves” and that “it spring from the proceedings, the interventions of the counsel in favor of the accused.”252 In particular, the judgment issued on August 21, 2002 by the First Unitary Tribunal considered that: “Mr. [Montiel] was assisted by in all his appearances before the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the District Court, with whom he stayed in contact and 246 Cf. Proceeding before the Fifth District Court of January 21, 2000 by which the testimonies of two attesting witnesses and one court-appointed defense counsel were rendered, supra note 230, folios 10437 to 10462. Moreover, proceeding before the Fifth District Court of January 27, 2000, by which the testimonies of two attesting witnesses and one court-appointed defense counsel were rendered (record of annexes to the answer to the application, volume XXIV, folios 10478 and 10497). 247 Cf. Confrontation procedures before the Fifth District Court of February 28, 2000 between Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel and a court-appointed defense counsel and an attesting witness (record of annexes to the answer to the application, volume XXV, folios 10599 to 10615). Likewise, confrontation procedures before the Fifth District Court of February 29 and March 15, 2000, between Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel and two attesting witnesses and a court-appointed defense counsel (record of annexes to the answer to the application, volume XXV, folios 10619 to 10624 and 10672 to 10687). 248 Statement of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel of May 4, 1999, supra note 142, folios 8198 to 8199. 249 Cf. Complaint filed by the Second Infantry Captain et al, supra note 66, folios 4212 to 4214. 250 The First Unitary Tribunal pointed out that in the confrontation procedures conducted between the victims and the court-appointed defense counsel in the statement of May 4, “the latter repeated that they rendered their statement, without any pressure, before the Agent of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Arcelia, Guerrero and that he assisted them as their defense counsel in such procedure, verifying that the procedure was conducted according to law and in full respect of individual guarantees.” Cf. Judgment issued on August 21, 2002 by the First Unitary Tribunal, supra note 148, folio 15187. According to the court-appointed defense counsel who assisted the victims in their statements of May 4, 1999, before the proceeding, he suggested Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel “to render the statement without felling any kind of pressure” and that “they should not feel pressured by the presence of the judicial officials.”.” Cf. Proceeding before the Fifth District Court of January 21, 2000 by which two attesting witnesses and one court-appointed defense counsel rendered their testimonies, supra note 230, folio 10455. This version was ratified in one of the confrontation hearings. 251 Cf. Confrontation hearings before the Fifth District Court of February 28, 2000, supra note 247, folios 10599 to 10615. 252 15191. Cf. Judgment of August 21, 2002 issued by the First Unitary Tribunal, supra note 148, folio