32 81. The facts of the instant case occurred in a context of significant military presence in the state of Guerrero in the 1990s,105 as an official response to drug trafficking and to emerging armed groups like the “Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional” (Zapatista Army of National Liberation) (EZLN) and the “Ejército Popular Revolucionario” (Popular Revolutionary Army) (EPR).106 This response consisted in the deployment of armed forces to the states where these groups operated and where drug trafficking activities took place.107 Consequently, and taking into account some of the controversies between the parties (infra paras. 90 to 92) the Court deems it relevant to specify the scope of some of the treaty obligations under this type of circumstances. 82. Within the previous framework, as of that decade, the Armed Forces assumed roles and duties of public security in some states, including Guerrero, through the establishment of patrols on highways and roads, roadblocks, occupation of towns, detention and interrogation of people and searching homes looking for uniforms, weapons and documents.108 Guerrero is “one [of] the few [states] that has two military zones out of 41 in total" and also includes a military region, "IX, out of XII regions, whose budget had a percentage increase of 50.14 per cent from 2000 to 2009, an increase greater than that of all the other regions except for region I.”109 83. In this specific case, the Court observes that in the military operation carried out in the town of Pizotla on May 2, 1999, prior to the arrest of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel, the military group that intervened was made up of 43 soldiers.110 In this regard, the NCHR verified that the military commission moved to this location to confirm a piece of information regarding a gang ("gavilla") (supra para. 67). The NCHR considered proven the facts that “the town […] was besieged,” “it was under surveillance,” and that “military personnel […] shot with firearms, terrorizing the civil population of the town of Pizotla, in addition to having violently treated the women and children and keeping this town isolated during two days.”111 The NCHR established that “the behavior exhibited [by the military personnel] in charge of directing, supervising and authorizing this operation violated the human rights of the community’s inhabitants, […] in that they were prevented from [...] exercising their right to freedom of movement.”112 84. Moreover, the defense counsels of the alleged victims at the domestic level indicated that the Mexican Army is not a competent authority to investigate and prosecute crimes, and that “it shall be the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the Judicial Colombia. Communication N° 195/1985 of July 12, 1990, para. 5.5 and Case of Chongwe V. Zambia, Communication Nº 821/1998 of October 25, 2000, para. 5.3. 105 Case of Rosendo Cantú et al v. Mexico, supra note 30, para. 70. 106 Cf. Affidavit of Miguel Carbonell Sanchez of March 30, 2010 (record of the merits, volume III, folio 1166) and Human Rights Watch. Uniformed Impunity: The inadequate use of justice in Mexico to investigate abuses committed during anti-drug trafficking and public security operations (Impunidad Uniformada: uso indebido de la justicia en Mexico para investigar abusos cometidos durante operativos contra narcotrafico y de seguridad publica), April 2009 (record of annexes to the brief of pleadings and motions, volume XXI, folio 8675 to 8676). 107 Cf. Affidavit rendered by Miguel Carbonell Sanchez, supra note 106, folio 1166 and Affidavit rendered by Jose Luis Piñeyro on August 9, 2010 (record of the merits, volume III, folios 1284 to 1294). 108 Cf. Affidavit rendered by Miguel Carbonell Sánchez, supra note 106, folios 1166 and 1168 and affidavit of José Luis Piñeyro, supra note 107, folios 1284 to 1294. 109 Cf. Statement rendered by Jose Luis Piñeyro, supra note 107, folio 1288. 110 Cf. NCHR. Recommendation N° 8/2000 of July 14, 2000, supra note 89, folio 8440. 111 Cf. NCHR. Recommendation N° 8/2000 of July 14, 2000, supra note 89, folios 8181 to 8367. 112 Cf. NCHR. Recommendation N° 8/2000 of July 14, 2000, supra note 89, folios 8181 to 8367.