III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES ON ADMISSIBILITY A. The petitioners 5. Regarding the facts, the petitioners maintain that on June 6, 1997 the residence of Mr. Juan García Cruz and Mr. Santiago Sánchez Silvestre was raided by officers of the Judicial Police of the Federal District of Mexico without a search warrant, the officers beat them then took them to the facilities at the Attorney General’s Office of the Federal District (PGJDF).According to the report, the police continued to beat Mr. García Cruz and Mr. Sánchez Silvestre and threatened to kill them if they did not plead guilty to crimes they had not committed. They also maintain that their injuries were verified by the Expert Services Department of the PGJDF, and that the detainees were not allowed outside contact for two days before appearing before the judge. In their statements to the courts, both men said that they had suffered physical and psychological torture at the facilities in the Attorney General’s Office and that they had been forced to sign blank sheets. Notwithstanding, they were sentenced to three years for “carrying firearms reserved for the exclusive use of the Army, Navy, or Air Force.” 6. The petitioners allege that the public defenders assigned to Mr. García Cruz and Mr. Sánchez Silvestre failed to perform their duty to give them a proper defense, submitted no evidence, and limited themselves to formally following the proceedings, to the detriment of the accused. Despite the subsequent intervention of a private lawyer in the defense of Mr. García Cruz and Mr. Sánchez Silvestre, the magistrates refused to admit the evidence that would prove their innocence and instead upheld the confessions obtained under torture. 7. The petitioners claim that the waiver of exhaustion of domestic remedies provided in Article 46(2)(a) of the American Convention is applicable due to the ineffectiveness of the appeals made against the sentence of the lower court and the appeal for amparo presented on behalf of the condemned men. In respect of the acts of torture, the petitioners invoke the exception in Article 46(2)(c), in light of the fact that two years had elapsed since the Attorney General’s Office was made aware of the facts and had failed to conduct an investigation. Furthermore, they maintain that this inaction has left them completely defense less because they have not been able to disprove the accusation that led to the illegal sentence. 8. Regarding the deadline for filing, the petitioners indicate that the last remedy they had for attempting to resolve the situation was exhausted with the judgment of November11,1999 of the Third Collegiate Circuit Court of the Federal District. Therefore, the date of presentation of the petition to the IACHR meets the requirements of Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention. B. The State 9. The Mexican State responded to the petition with an analysis of each of the judicial proceedings. Regarding the actions of the lower court judge, it affirms that “the preliminary statements of the accused were taken in accordance with the law” and that “they were first assisted by the assigned public defender and then by private defenders.” 3 The State alleges that “all the proceedings in criminal case No. 66/97 were conducted in strict observance of the law in accordance with federal criminal law procedure.” 4 In respect of the actions of the public defenders, it maintains that “they submitted relevant evidence in a timely and proper manner, year. On November 2, 2001,the State offered additional information, which was transmitted to the petitioners on the 16th of that month. On December 17, 2001,the petitioners sent their comments, which were forwarded to the State on the 19th of that month. A new request for a hearing was received from the petitioners on January 18, 2002.On January 30, 2002, the Inter-American Commission forwarded to the petitioners the information from the Mexican State dated January 23, 2002; on February 21 of that year, the IACHR communicated to the petitioners that it would not be possible to schedule a hearing on the case. On February 28, 2002, the petitioners sent additional information, which was made known to the State on March 25, 2002.On August 23, 2002, the petitioners submitted additional information, which was transmitted to the Mexican State on October 3 of that year. The State sent comments in a note dated December 9, 2002.The petitioners requested a hearing on admissibility on January 3, 2003.On January 8, 2003, the Inter-American Commission forwarded the most recent communication from the State to the petitioners. On February 5, 2003, the IACHR reported to the petitioners that it would not be possible to hold a hearing of the case during the 117th regular session. On February 10, 2003, the petitioners sent additional information, which was communicated to the Mexican State on May 15, 2003. 3Communication from the Mexican State dated September 1, 2000, pg. 1. 4Idem, pg. 2. 2