an amparo petition [protection of constitutional rights] on April 9, 2003, requesting that military jurisdiction for the case to be ruled unconstitutional. The amparo petition 405/2003 was denied by the First District Judge, of Chilpancingo, Guerrero. Faced with this result, the petitioners state that the alleged victim, on September 19, 2003, lodged a petition for amparo review. The denial was upheld, however, in a November 28, 2003 ruling, on the grounds that the alleged victim was precluded from lodging a petition for a trial on constitutional guarantees (amparo), because she was the victim of the crime.The petitioners allege that at the time of lodging the petition they are unaware of the procedural stage of the case, since the alleged victim has not been notified of any proceedings in the military venue. 12.The petitioners contend that in view of the lack of effectiveness demonstrated by the civil and military authorities in the investigation of the case of the alleged victim, the Comisión Nacional de Derechos Humanos(CNDH) [National Human Rights Commission] issued recommendation 48/2003 regarding the violation of guarantees of legality and legal certainty, since the office of the military prosecutor intended to close the preliminary investigation without having undertaken the proceedings necessary to prove that a crime had been committed. B. The State 13.In response to the petition, the Mexican State maintains that on March 27, 2002, the Office of the Attorney General for Military Justice initiated an ex officio investigation of the case in response to a newspaper report titled “Second Woman Raped by Soldiers in the Me Paa Region,” published in the newspaperEl Sur. The office performed several proceedings: the taking of depositions of 31 soldiers stationed at the Méndez Base of Operations, who were carrying out operations on the day of the facts in Barranca Tecuani. The Mexican State contends that all of the soldiers who gave testimony headed out in different directions, but none to the village where the victim was to be found. 14. The State contends that on May 17, 2002, the local civil prosecutor decided to recuse himself, referring the case to the military venue, and handing over the chemical forensic report of the examination practiced on the alleged victim, which identified sperm cells. In this connection, and with the purpose of making a chemical forensic study of genetic material, the coordinator of Forensic Chemistry of the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Guerrero reported that the material had been exhausted in the analysis and that the samples had been destroyed. 15.The State contends that proceedings were scheduled for November 15 and December 18, 2002, and January 24, 2003, but neither did the alleged victim appear nor did the witnesses, although they had been duly served with summons. The Mexican State maintains that due to the unexcused lack of appearance on the part of the alleged victim, the military prosecutor requested the Office of the Attorney General for Military Justice to “close the case file, with the reservations required by law, on the grounds of a lack of legal interest of the victim, the lack of a charged suspect, and the lack of certainty or sufficient evidence leading to believe that soldiers of the Mexican Army would have committed the crime.” 2 However, the State further argues, the Office of the Attorney General for Military Justice denied the request and returned the preliminary inquiry for its continuation and ordered the remaining proceedings to be carried out. 16.The State maintains that on March 13, 2003 the alleged victim requested that the military prosecutor abstain from continuing with the case, receiving the reply that the “proceeding was legally grounded and that for that reason, they could not evade their legal duty to continue investigating the facts.” 17.The Mexican State states that it wishes to “emphasize the need to exhaust all the remaining investigation proceedings, because it is asine qua nonrequirement to learn the identity of those responsible in order to punish them.”Consequently, and wishing to resolve the matter, the State contends that it considers necessary to provide the conditions so that the victim can exhaust all the remaining proceedings and be in the position of identifying those probably responsible. In addition, the Mexican State has considered forming a Working Group 2State’s response dated July 12, 2005, p. 3. 3