bodies as they deemed necessary".13 The State also maintains that the authorities cooperated fully with the alleged victims for purposes of bringing an appeal,14 but that on July 16, 2001, the First Unitary Tribunal of the 21st Circuit Court "examined and assessed the document and decided nevertheless to uphold the judgment".15 The State also declared in its submission that the new appeal brought by Messrs. Cabrera García and Montiel Flores on October 14, 2001, "could invalidate the self-incriminating statements made by Messrs. Montiel Flores and Cabrera García during the proceedings".16 It adds the following: It must be stressed that various bodies of the Federal Executive Power had intervened on behalf of Rodolfo Montiel Flores and Teodoro Cabrera García, recognizing that they were victims of torture, so that this fact could be considered by the court. The foregoing is independent of the merits as to their guilt, which it is up to the jurisdictional bodies to determine. Under the circumstances, the Federal Executive Power decided to examine the options available by law to release Messrs. Montiel Flores and Cabrera García, given the nature of the crimes for which they had been convicted. It was determined subsequently that the only available route was that stipulated in Article 75 of the Federal Criminal Code.17 24. The Mexican State offers further explanations of the proceedings by the CNDH and mentions the recommendation addressed by that body on July 14, 2000, to the National Defense Ministry. With respect to the proceedings conducted by the military prosecutor, the State declares that "in order to pursue more thoroughly the investigation of the violations of human rights, the Ministry of Foreign Relations requested the PGJM expressly, on January 15, 2002, to reconsider the possibility of continuing or beginning a new investigation into the matter."18 The State's submission concludes by indicating that the document was transmitted to the PGJM on January 30, 2002, and that "it will keep the Commission and the petitioners informed of decisions and resolutions, both administrative and judicial, taken by the national authorities in this matter."19 25. As to the petitioners' interpretation of the reasons that led to the decision to release Messrs. Cabrera García and Montiel Flores, the Mexican State maintains: This in no way implies that the government of Mexico admits or confirms those violations since, while it is clear that the Mexican government considers it a fact that those persons were victims of human rights violations, it is also clear that at no time and under no circumstances were Messrs. Montiel Flores and Cabrera García prevented or obstructed from enforcing their rights before the various jurisdictional bodies, either personally or through their representatives.20 13 Communication of the Mexican State of February 5, 2002, page 1. The State reported: The President of Mexico instructed the Secretary of the Interior to review the file of Messrs. Montiel Flores and Cabrera García and, as appropriate, to take the necessary and possible steps according to law to remedy the situation. As a result of the foregoing, the Ministry of the Interior supported and advised the defense team of Messrs. Montiel Flores and Cabrera García to appeal to the federal courts, and to complain that the medical report issued by the specialists Christian Tramsen and Morris Tidball-Binz had not been accepted as evidence. On March 22, 2001, that tribunal granted amparo and the protection of the federal courts to the petitioners, ordering that the medical examination report issued on July 29, 2000, by two forensic experts belonging to the organization "Physicians for Human Rights" be accepted and assessed. This meant that the court of first instance would have to assess that document and, if appropriate, issue a new decision. Meanwhile, government representatives worked with the defense to prepare arguments that would strengthen the juridical value of the forensic opinion, so that it could be considered by the court as trustworthy evidence that those persons had been the victims of human rights violations. Communication of the State dated February 6, 2002, page 2. 15 Idem. 16 Idem. 17 Idem. 18 Idem., page 3. 19 Idem. 20 Communication of the State, dated June 25, 2002, page 1. 14 5