- 45 - government of the state of Mexico, by subverting the historical truth of the facts and, in some cases, denying this […] entails an evasive and obstructive conduct by the personnel of the said authorities.136 120. With regard to the specific facts relating to the women in this case, the CNDH concluded that “it is presumed that the public servants of the municipal and state police forces, as well as of the Office of the Attorney General and of the Office of Public Defense in the state of Mexico violated the rights to physical integrity and personal safety, personal liberty, and legality and legal protection to the detriment of [Yolanda Muñoz Diosdada, Norma Aidé Jiménez Osorio, María Patricia Romero Hernández, Mariana Selvas Gómez, Georgina Edith Rosales Gutiérrez, Ana María Velasco Rodríguez, Suhelen Gabriela Cuevas Jaramillo, Bárbara Italia Méndez Moreno, María Cristina Sánchez Hernández and Angélica Patricia Torres Linares].”137 The CNDH also concluded that, owing to the injuries suffered on being detained or during the transfer, “it is presumed that they were subjected to cruel and degrading treatment,”138 and it also referred to the sexual abuse committed against them, indicating that “it is presumed that their sexual freedom […] was violated.”139 Additionally, in the cases of Norma Aidé Jiménez Osorio and Bárbara Italia Méndez Moreno, the CNDH concluded, expressly, that it “presumes that rape occurred […] by the police agents who were guarding them on board the truck when they were transferred from San Salvador Atenco.”140 Also, with regard to some of the women, the CNDH expressly indicated that, given the absence of an order from a competent authority, the detentions had been arbitrary.141 Lastly, it also determined that a series of irregularities were committed in the preliminary inquiry opened against the women victims in this case.142 121. On October 26, 2006, Recommendation 38/2006 was sent to the First Criminal Trial Judge of the Tenango del Valle Judicial District and to the Second Criminal Trial Judge of the Toluca Judicial District, both of the state of Mexico, for incorporation into criminal cases 59/2006, 79/2006, 95/2006 and 96/2006.143 C.2 Investigation conducted by the SCJN 122. On February 6, 2007, the SCJN decided to exercise its non-jurisdictional authority to investigate, granted by the Federal Constitution,144 in relation to the events that had occurred on 136 CNDH Recommendation No. 38/2006 of October 16, 2006 (evidence file, folios 28538, 28605 and 28606). Cf. CNDH Recommendation No. 38/2006 of October 16, 2006 (evidence file, folios 29456, 29201, 29763, 29761, 29922, 29781, 30078, 30079, 28923, 29389, 29852 and 29996). 137 Cf. CNDH Recommendation No. 38/2006 of October 16, 2006 (evidence file, folios 29458, 29203, 29763, 29923, 29783, 30081, 28925, 29391, 29853 and 29998). 138 CNDH Recommendation No. 38/2006 of October 16, 2006 (evidence file, folios 29459, 29203, 29783, 30080, 30081, 28926, 29391 and 29998). 139 140 Cf. CNDH Recommendation No. 38/2006 of October 16, 2006 (evidence file, folios 29203 and 29391). CNDH Recommendation No. 38/2006 of October 16, 2006 (evidence file, folios 29457, 30079, 28924, 29390, 29852 and 29997). 141 Cf. CNDH Recommendation No. 38/2006 of October 16, 2006 (evidence file, folios 29459 to 29461, 29204 to 29206, 29764, 29924 to 29926, 29784, 29785, 30081 to 30083, 28926 to 28928, 29392 to 29394, 29854, 29855, and 29998 to 30000). 142 Cf. Notice of the National Human Rights Commission (CNDH) published in La Jornada on October 26, 2006 (evidence file, folio 1606). 143 According to the laws of Mexico in force at the time of the facts, the SCJN had specific authority to appoint a special commission to conduct inquiries into acts that constituted serious violations of any individual guarantee: “The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation may appoint one or some of its members, or a district judge or circuit magistrate, or 144