76 the allegations of torture, the Court verifies that on October 10, 1999, the agent of the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office referred a question on lack of competence ratione materiae to the Agent of the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office and State Delegate of the Guerrero Attorney General’s Office of the Republic in the state of Guerrero, because it considered that “the accused were in active service when they committed the illicit acts therefores these acts must be considered as violations of military discipline.”295 On November 5, 1999, the Agent of the Federal Public Prosecutor’s office decided to decline jurisdiction in order to continue with the corresponding investigations to the Agent of the Military Prosecutor’s Office, arguing that the suspects were Mexican military officers in active service on the day of the facts. On December 14, 1999, said Officer of the Federal Public Prosecutor declined jurisdiction to its military counterpart in the 35th Military Zone.296 Finally, on June 13, 2000, the Office of the Prosecutor General for Military Justice issued an order to store the case file since he considered that there were no elements to prove the torture.297 195. It has also been mentioned that (supra para. 75) at the same time, Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel filed a complaint before the Human Rights Defense Commission of the state of Guerrero on May 14, 1999, regarding the facts of the instant case. As a result, case file CODDEHUM-CRTC/031/99-I was opened, which, by then, was referred to the NCHR due to competence issues. The NCHR launched an investigation in order to corroborate the facts. In this way, the NCHR issued Recommendation 8/2000, in which it was determined that "given the repeated silence [on the part of the Office of the Prosecutor General for Military Justice],”298 said office “presumed that the [allegations] of torture were true” in keeping with articles 38 and 70 of the NCHR Law” (supra para. 75). Likewise, in one of its recommendations, the NCHR ordered “the Office for the Prosecutor General of the Military Justice (PGJM) to start a preliminary investigation against the members of the Mexican Army who authorized, supervised, implemented and carried out the operation in the period from May 1 through May 4, 1999.”299 196. In response to the NCHR’s recommendations, the State launched another Preliminary Inquiry classified as number SC/304/2000/VII-I. On February 10, 2001, the Office of the Prosecutor General for Military Justice went to the facilities of Iguala de la Independencia Prison, where the victims were being held in order to confirm their complaints. That day, Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel filed a brief addressed to the PGJM, wherein they demanded that said institution decline jurisdiction and return the Preliminary Inquiry to the Attorney General’s jurisdiction.300 In the case file before the Court, there is no response to such a request. On November 3, 2001, the Office of the Prosecutor General for Military Justice recommended to file the criminal record, since it determined that: 295 Cf. Consultation on lack of competence ratione materiae of October 10, 1999 (Proceeding N° 91/CC/99) (record of annexes to the application, volume XII, folio 4846 to 4849). 296 NCHR. Recommendation N° 8/2000 of July 14, 2000, supra note 89, folio 311. 297 Cf. Brief of June 20, 2006 by which the State presented “its observations to the arguments on the merits of the petitioners, related to case 11449 Rodolfo Montiel Flores and Teodoro Cabrera Garcia” before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (record of annexes to the application, volume II, folio 676). 298 NCHR. Recommendation N° 8/2000 of July 14, 2000, supra note 89, folio 312. 299 NCHR. Recommendation N° 8/2000 of July 14, 2000, supra note 89, folio 313. 300 Cf. Brief presented on February 10, 2001 by Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel before the agent of the Attorney General’s Office for Military Justice (Preliminary Inquiry N° 5C/304/2000/VIII) (record of annexes to the brief of pleadings and motions, volume XXI, folio 8904).