86 indictment.”377 342. For its part, the EAAF highlighted irregularities relating to the fact that: (i) [Mr. García and Mr. González] were only shown flyers with photographs of eight of the disappeared women whereas, at the time, more women had disappeared; (ii) it was precisely the women in those flyers with photographs that constituted the final official list of the cotton field victims; (iii) the similarity of their statements with the contents of official documents, such as the flyers and the autopsies, was striking; (iv) they remembered very precisely the physical data and clothing of each of their victims, well over a year after some of the disappearances had occurred, and they both had similar recollections. The EAAF also indicated that, considering the degree of contradiction in the expert appraisals provided, the judgment convicting the accused did not explain how these had been assessed.378 343. The Tribunal recalls that it is not determining whether the Convention was violated as regards Mr. García and Mr. González. Nevertheless, the information concerning the irregularities in the investigation is essential for assessing the access to justice of the mothers and the other relatives of the three murdered women. Taking into account the evidence examined, it can be concluded that the investigations into the “cotton field crimes” were related to a context of irregularities in the determination of those responsible for similar crimes. Hence, for example, in 2003, the CNDH referred to the “indiscriminate obtaining of confessions” by officials of the Public Prosecutor’s Office and police agents working under them. Based on 89 cases filed before the jurisdictional authority, the CNDH observed that: Those involved in the perpetration of the crimes confessed to their participation “spontaneously” before the official of the state Public Prosecutor’s Office, even though, subsequently, they testified before the jurisdictional body that they had been subjected to torture, ill-treatment or threats to make them sign statements with which they disagreed and which had been extracted from them by the use of force. […] Evidently, when detainees are tortured, those responsible generally use practices designed not to leave any trace on the victim’s body and, if applicable, to justify their actions by simulating medical certificates that, in general, merely indicate that the person examined was “uninjured” without complying with any methodological parameters.”379 344. A report of the United Nations Office for Drugs and Crime (UNODC) on its mission in Ciudad Juárez, examined the Cotton Field case and other cases. The Office verified that several judges unduly inverted the burden of proof, rejected the allegations of torture refusing to accept the truth of the retractions, and indicated that the allegations had not been proved adequately, even though no expert medical evaluation of the injuries had been made and in the absence of a prior inquiry into the facts. The report concluded that: The same pattern is found in all the procedures examined: […] a significant number of the [accused] confess to the crimes with which they are charged when giving testimony in the preliminary phase of the proceedings or in the preliminary inquiry assisted by a public defender (not appointed by them), but do not ratify the confession in court, […] denouncing inhuman and degrading treatment and […] torture to obtain their confession. Invariably, these allegations are rejected by the intervening judges, in the successive decisions they deliver, with rather abstract arguments, or with sundry juridical technical terminology, but without ordered investigations or measures to clarify whether the 377 CNDH, Informe Especial, supra note 66, folios 2229 and 2230, and Second Inspector General of the National Human Rights Commission, official letter No. V2/004191 of February 27, 2004 (case file of attachments to the application, volume IX, attachment 78, folios 2994 and 2995). 378 Cf. testimony of witness Doretti, supra note 141, folio 2379. 379 CNDH, Informe Especial, supra note 66, folios 2228 and 2229.