The Court confirmed, inter alia, that “there is no proof that the [physical injuries] were caused precisely at the time when they were making statements to the Investigative Body assisted by a person of trust.” Messrs. García Cruz and Sánchez Silvestre “filed a writ of amparo” against this sentence.45 48. On October 5, 2007, the First Collegiate Criminal Court of Texcoco of the Superior Court of Justice of the State of Mexico issued a ruling on the writ of amparo, in which it dismissed the allegations of torture made by Messrs. Juan García Cruz and Santiago Sánchez Silvestre and ruled that their prosecution statements had full evidentiary value, based on the same considerations as the judgment of February 12, 2002.”46 B.4) Events subsequent to Report No. 138/11 of October 31, 2011 49. On December 19, 2011, the Prosecutor’s Office for the Investigation of Crimes Committed by Public Servants began a preliminary investigation into the probable commission of the crime of torture to the detriment of Messrs. García Cruz and Sánchez Silvestre in relation to the events that occurred in 1997.47 50. On March 26, 2012 the Second Collegiate Criminal Court of Texcoco issued a ruling on the appeal for a special review filed by Messrs. García Cruz and Sánchez Silvestre. It ruled that their request to be declared innocent was inadmissible because the dismissal of the evidentiary value of the confessions did not directly affect the “convicting value” of the other evidence used as a basis for the conviction.48 51. On June 27, 2012, Messrs. García Cruz and Sánchez Silvestre filed an application for a direct appeal against the criminal ruling of October 5, 2007, issued by the First Collegiate Criminal Court of Texcoco to the Superior Court of Justice of the State of Mexico, 49 and against its implementation (supra para. 48). On March 25, 2013, the Collegiate Court of the Auxiliary Circuit of the Seventh Region admitted the direct appeal filed by the victims “in order to restore [to them] the enjoyment of the guarantees that had been violated and their human rights.” This Collegiate Court decided, inter alia, that the criminal sentence of October 5, 2007, was “based on statements obtained through […] coercion” and “contravened the Constitutional principles of non self-incrimination, presumed innocence and adequate defense, since the conviction was based on unlawful evidence obtained in breach of the constitutional and legal principles contained in both domestic and supranational standards.” The amparo ruling decided to return the trial documents to the Collegiate Court of origin and ordered the “[judicial] authority responsible: a) to [declare] the appealed judgment void: b) [i]n its place, to issue another ruling reiterating the considerations that were not the subject of the amparo award related to the acceptance of the elements of the crimes of aggravated homicide, injuries, violent robbery and damage to 45 Report on Merits No. 138/11, paras. 116 to 118. Report on Merits No. 138/11, paras. 118 to 119. 47 Answer briefs of the State to the Report on Merits No. 138/11 of January 17 and June 14, 2002, and official letter of the Attorney General’s Office of the Federal District, of December 22, 2011 (file processed before the Commission, Volumes VI and VII, pages 3101 and 3751). 48 Report dated June 14, 2012, on compliance with the recommendations contained in the Report on Merits No. 138/11 and the judgment issued on March 26, 2012, by the Second Collegiate Criminal Chamber of Texcoco (file being processed before the Commission, Volume VI, pages 2981 to 3033, and 3042). 49 This ruling was issued in execution of the judgment of the Second Collegiate Court in Criminal Matters of the Second Circuit of Toluca, State of Mexico on September 13, 2007, admitting a direct amparo action filed by the victims and ordering the First Criminal Collegiate Chamber of Texcoco “to annul” the appealed judgment of February 12, 2002, which resolved the appeal filed by the victims against the conviction issued on September 6, 2001, in the criminal proceedings against them for the crimes of homicide, injuries, violent robbery, organized crime, and damage to property and “to issue another [judgment].” 46 14