74 Commission and added that "the amparo proceeding, which by definition constitutes the mechanism of a legal guarantee of the fundamental rights in Mexico, is ineffective to contest the scope of the military jurisdiction, given that it establishes limited grounds for legal standing when the victims or injured parties seek to resort to the courts.” On the other hand, the representatives argued that the investigation of torture was not initiated ex officio by the judicial authorities that received the complaint of the alleged facts. 188. The State mentioned that the instant case “is not related to the military justice in Mexico,” given that “the assessment and determination of the alleged perpetration of torture was considered by independent and impartial tribunals that belong to the Judiciary of the Mexican State, remedying any violation that, […], may entail an investigation conducted by a military authority.” In addition, it clarified that even though "the proceedings conducted by the Military Attorney General […] concluded that no torture was committed, they were not taken into account by the Judiciary when issuing its respective rulings.” On the other hand, the State indicated that “the defense […] had at its disposal and thoroughly used different simple and prompt remedies that legally allowed it to put forward before the competent judicial instances the alleged acts of torture.” It emphasized that “[s]aid remedies were effective for the defense inasmuch as, at first, […] the Collegiate Tribunal ordered the judicial assessment of an expert opinion that could have demonstrated the innocence of the […] victims [and], secondly, the Unitary Tribunal acquitted Mr. Rodolfo Montiel of the commission of the crime against health and consequently, reduced the sentence imposed on him.” 189. The investigation initiated by the victims into the allegations of torture committed against them was conducted by military authorities, since article 57(II)(a) of the Code of Military Justice stablishes that the crimes against military discipline are those that are committed by military personnel in active service or in connection with active service. 1. Ex officio investigation before ordinary courts 190. During the first stages of the arrest, Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel presented different complaints of torture committed against them. It has been indicated that though in the statements rendered before the Public Prosecutor’s Office on May 4, 1999, no reference was made to said acts;285 on May 6, 1999, they complained before the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office that they had been beaten while at the Army facilities.286 Likewise, on May 7, 1999, in the presence of the Criminal Court of the Mina Judicial District, they described various forms of abuse suffered while in the custody of the Army.287 Afterwards, on July 13, 1999, the victims expanded the preliminary statements,288 repeating that they had received degrading treatment and threats from the state agents in order to accept to sign a confession (supra paras. 134 and 175). Said statements were expanded, in turn, on December 23, 1999 before the Fifth District Court.289 285 Statement of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel of May 4, 1999, supra note 142, folios 8198 to 8199. 286 Statements of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel of May 6, 1999, supra note 132, folios 9781 and 9785. 287 Preliminary statements of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel of May 7, 1999, supra note 144, folios 9836 to 9837 and 9841. 288 Cf. Expansion of the preliminary statement of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel of July 13, 1999, supra note 145, folios 10036 to 10041. 289 Cf. Expansion of the statements of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel of December 23, 1999, supra note 67, folios 10360 to 10368.