57 Herrera. On November 7, 2001, nearby in the same cotton field, the bodies were found of another five women,235 who are not considered alleged victims in this case, for the reasons set out in the Court’s order of January 19, 2009.236 210. The Commission and the representatives stated that the bodies of Mss. Herrera, González and Ramos had been subjected to particular brutality by the perpetrators of the killings. The representatives added that “[t]he way in which the bodies [of the three victims] were found suggests that they were raped and abused with extreme cruelty.” 211. The State alleged that the autopsy report concluded that “it was not possible to observe the initial conditions of the bodies (post-mortem rigor and livor mortis) owing to the passage of time and the actions of the environment on them, which implied that the degree of decomposition was so great that it prevented detailed scientific analysis and, therefore, establishment of the cause of death.” Mexico emphasized that the “state of decomposition of the bodies (a natural phenomenon that could not be attributed to it)” prevented “determining the cause of death.” Furthermore, it indicated that the “first measure taken by the Attorney-General’s Office was to determine the nature of the deaths, taking into consideration the conditions in which the bodies were found.” 212. The evidence provided reveals that, on November 6, 2001, the day on which the bodies of the three alleged victims were found, the official record of the removal of the bodies was drawn up,237 together with an affidavit (fe ministerial) on the place and the bodies.238 In addition, the autopsies were performed, and the respective reports 235 Cf. attestation of evidence issued by an official of the Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Office of the Special Prosecutor for the Investigation of the Murders of Women in Preliminary Investigation file No. 27913/01/1501 of November 8, 2001 (case file of attachments to the pleadings and motions brief, volume XIV, attachment 3, folios 4778 to 4783). 236 In the order, the Court indicated, inter alia: 40. That […] the Commission issued admissibility reports with regard to […] only three victims and their next of kin. […] 41. That, following the adoption of the admissibility report, during the merits stage, the representatives asked the Commission to rule on possible violations of the rights of the other presumed victims found in the cotton field. In particular, they asked the Commission to process these cases motu proprio and joinder them to the cases that were already underway, or that, additionally, it consider the ANAD as a petitioner for the new presumed victims. […] 44. That […] the Commission never referred to the requests of the petitioners […]. The Court observes that the representatives were only made aware of the Commission’s position three years later, when the Court requested information on this issue. […] 46. That, since, in the case of the new presumed victims alleged by the representatives, all the necessary procedural stages had not been conducted to allow the Commission to include them in its report on merits, the Court must reject the request to include María de los Ángeles Acosta Ramírez, Guadalupe Luna of the Rosa, Mayra Juliana Reyes Solís, Verónica Martínez Hernández, Bárbara Aracely Martínez Ramos, María Rocina Galicia Meraz, Merlín Elizabeth Rodríguez Sáenz and the woman who is still unidentified female 195/01, as well as Víctor Javier García Ramírez, Gustavo González Meza and Edgar Álvarez Cruz, as presumed victims in the instant case. […] 237 238 Cf. Records of the removal of a body, supra note 234, folios 2672 to 2683. Cf. affidavit (fe ministerial) concerning the place and the bodies made by an official of the Chihuahua Public Prosecutor’s Office and two assisting witnesses on November 6, 2001 (case file of attachments to the application, volume IX, attachment 33, folios 2661 to 2667).