unnecessary because said person was at the disposal of the Military Prosecutor’s Office.39 Additionally, this attorney ordered a preliminary investigation to be opened in this jurisdiction.40 44. On August 24, 1998, the Office of the Military Prosecutor issued its decision to bring a criminal suit against Lieutenant Coronel Luis Morales as the likely perpetrator of the crime of homicide41 under Article 192 and 193 of the Criminal Code for the State of Chihuahua, in connection with Article 57 of the Code of Military Justice.42 45. On August 30, 1998, the Office of the Public Prosecutor ceded jurisdiction over the case and transferred the case file to the Military Judge assigned to the Third Military Region in Mazatlán, Sinaloa,43 as provided under Article 57 of the Code of Military Justice, inasmuch as Mr. Trueba was killed by the alleged perpetrator in performance of acts of military service.44 46. That same day, the Military Judge assigned to the Third Military Region in Mazatlán, Sinaloa, opened criminal case No. 3979/98.45 He also issued a formal custody order against Mr. Morales.46 47. On September 2, 1998, Tomás Trueba filed a submission with the National Human Rights Commission requesting its intervention in the investigation into the crimes.47 On September 17, 1998 officials of the National Human Rights Commission interviewed the coronel who was the commanding officer of the outpost of the zone.48 This coronel asserted that “the military member allegedly responsible for the death of Mirey Trueba (…) was transferred to the military prison located in Mazatlán, Sinaloa, and is undergoing trial there.”49 48. On November 30, 1998, the National Human Rights Commission sent a communication to Tomás Trueba Loera noting that, after examining the information received by the Office of the Attorney General for Military Justice, he is advised as follows: On August 22, (…) Infantry Lieutenant Coronel Luis Raúl Morales Rodríguez, fired several shots at now deceased Mirey Trueba (…). It can be surmised that Mr. Luis (…) Morales (…) is being criminally investigated (…) before the Military Judge (…) so therefore we are facing a jurisdictional situation, inasmuch as it is the responsibility of the aforementioned judicial authority, (…) to rule on the guilt of the allegedly responsible person.50 49. The petitioners contended that authorities denied the representatives of the Mr. Trueba’s next of kin access to information on the status of the case from the beginning of the proceedings.51 On May 11, 39 Official Letter No. 32161, November 30, 1998. Annex 5 to initial petition. 40 Official Letter No. 32161, November 30, 1998. Annex 5 to initial petition. 41 Official Letter No. 32161, November 30, 1998. Annex 5 to initial petition. 42 Official Letter No. 32161, November 30, 1998. Annex 5 to initial petition. 43 Initial petition. State’s communication of December 6, 2001. 44 Initial petition. State’s communication of December 6, 2001. 45 Official Letter No. 32161, November 30, 1998. Annex 5 to the initial petition. 46 State’s communication of August 23, 2004. 47 Official Letter No. 32161, November 30, 1998. Annex 5 to the initial petition. 48 Official Letter No. 32161, November 30, 1998. Annex 5 to the initial petition. 49 Official Letter No. 32161, November 30, 1998. Annex 5 to the initial petition. 50 Official Letter No. 32161, November 30, 1998. Annex 5 to the initial petition. 51 Initial petition. Said information was not refuted by the State. 8