Commission addressed the Mexican State to reiterate the request for information that it had made on December 2, 2002. 14. On June 3, 2003, the petitioners submitted a request for an admissibility report on this matter, and the Commission so advised the Mexican State on June 23, 2003. On January 12, 2004, the petitioners requested a hearing in order to place before the Commission the statements of witnesses and arguments as to the substance of the case. On February 2, 2004, the Commission responded that it had not accepted that request. III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES AS TO ADMISSIBILITY A. The petitioners 15. According to the petitioners, the Mexican State is responsible for various violations of human rights to the prejudice of Teodoro Cabrera García and Rodolfo Montiel Flores. Those two persons belonged to the environmental group, Organización de Campesinos Ecologistas de la Sierra de Petatlán y Coyuca de Catalán (OCESP), which was created in 1998 to prevent the indiscriminate logging of that mountainous area.2 According to the petitioners, the violations committed by agents of the Mexican State against Cabrera García and Montiel Flores were intended to suppress the campesino environmentalists and thereby remove the obstacle posed by the independent action of OCESP.3 16. The alleged deeds began on May 2, 1999, when some 40 soldiers fired on a group of people assembled outside the home of Mr. Teodoro Cabrera García in the community of Pizotla in the State of Guerrero. During the shooting, Mr. Salomé Sanchez was killed, while the soldiers subsequently captured Cabrera García and Montiel Flores. The petitioners allege that the soldiers had no arrest warrant, nor did the circumstances of in flagrante delictoapply. They also allege that the soldiers tortured Teodoro Cabrera García and Rodolfo Montiel Flores repeatedly after their capture and during their incommunicado detention in the barracks of the 40th Infantry Battalion in Ciudad Altamirano, Guerrero, where they were held until the evening of May 6, 1999. 17. The petitioners maintain that as a result of the pain and threats to which they were subjected, Montiel Flores and Cabrera García were forced to sign self-incriminating statements that the soldiers had prepared, according to which they mutually acknowledged having committed the crimes of "sowing marijuana" and "carrying firearms".4 Those statements were used by the Federal Prosecutions Office (PGR) to bring criminal charges against the two individuals.5 18. The defense team for Messrs. Cabrera García and Montiel Flores asked the presiding judge, on August 26, 1999, to report to the Public Ministry the acts of torture that had been committed by soldiers against the defendants. Yet in November 1999, the PGR declared itself incompetent to continue investigating the torture charges, and handed the matter over to the PGJM, on the grounds that those allegedly responsible were military personnel on active duty. According to the petitioners, the investigation was resolved and closed on June 13, 2000, pursuant to the military investigator's finding that there was no evidence to support charges of torture.6 2 The petitioners point out that "the committed efforts for the independent defense of natural resources conducted by OCESP and, in particular, by Teodoro Cabrera and Rodolfo Montiel, have been widely recognized by major organizations working for the defense of the environment and human rights". They note that Amnesty International has declared them as "prisoners of conscience" (March 2000), that they were awarded the Goldman Environmental Prize (April 2000), the Chico Mendes Prize conferred by the Sierra Club (February 2001), the Sergio Mendes Human Rights Prize (May 2001) and Roque Dalton medal (May 2001). Idem, pages 5 and 6. 3 Idem, para 9, page 9. 4 Communication of the petitioners, October 25, 2001, para. 8, page 3. 5 The petitioners report that Rodolfo Montiel and Teodoro Cabrera were formally detained and processed, first by the First Instance Criminal Court of Mina under criminal case 13/99 (even though th at body is not competent to take on the case, as it deals with alleged federal crimes), and subsequently by the Fifth District Court of the 21st Circuit under case file 61/99. Communication of the petitioners, October 25, 2001, para. 11, page 3. 6 Idem, para.13, page 3. 3