72 (e) Right to participate in the criminal proceedings 246. The representatives argued that the Attorney General of the Republic has not provided Mrs. Tita Radilla Martínez with copies of the case file of the preliminary inquiry carried out with regard to the facts of this case, reason for which they stated that her participation as a collaborator in the proceedings, as well as that of her legal representatives “was limited.”250 In that same sense, they stated that the negative to issue copies of the case file constituted a violation “to the right victims have to obtain all adequate means for the preparation of their defense and to adequately exercise their right to collaboration, violating Article 8(2)(c) of the American Convention.” On the other hand, the representatives indicated that once the case had been brought before the Second District Court in the State of Guerrero (supra para. 188), “[n]either the judicial officials nor the Agent of the Public Prosecutors’ Office of the Federation attached to the Court, allowed them to revise the actions within the criminal case, despite their nature of victim and claimant […],” in violation of the victims’ rights. The Commission did not present arguments regarding this specific matter. 247. Pursuant with the right acknowledged in Article 8(1) of the American Convention, in relation with Article 1(1) of the same, this Tribunal has established that the States have the obligation to guarantee that, during all the stages of the corresponding proceedings, the victims can present arguments, receive information, provide evidence, make allegations, and, in synthesis, defend their interests.251 Said participation shall seek a fair trial, the knowledge of the truth of what happened, and the granting of fair reparations.252 In that sense, the Court has established that the domestic legislation shall organize the corresponding process pursuant with the American Convention.253 The state’s obligation to adjust domestic legislation to the conventional stipulations includes the constitutional text and all the legal stipulations of a secondary or regulatory nature, in such a way that can be translated into the effective practical application of the human rights protection standards.254 248. In this regard, Article 20, section C, fraction II of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States is relevant; according to the same the “victim or [the] injured party [has the right to c]ollaborate with the Public Prosecutors’ Office; to have received from them all the data or evidentiary elements they have, both in the investigation and in the proceedings, to have the corresponding diligences resolved, and to participate in the trial and file the appeals in the terms established by law.255” Likewise, Article 141, fraction II, of 250 They indicated that during the processing of the integration of the inquiry in the Special Prosecutors’ Office –FEMOSPP- “there was a contradicting change of attitude and criteria with regard to the granting of copies of the diligences. At the beginning they were granted on several occasions, however, at the end their granting was denied.” 251 Cf. Case of Baldeón García, supra note 51, para. 146; Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, supra note 24, para. 247, and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 44, para. 183. 252 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo v. Colombia, supra note 40, para. 233, and Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, supra note 40, para. 194. 253 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo v. Colombia, supra note 40, para. 233; Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, supra note 24, para. 247, and Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, supra note 40, para. 188. 254 Cf. Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 21, 2009, Considering clause number forty-nine. 255 Cf. Political Constitution of the United Mexican States (dossier of appendixes to the respondent’s plea, appendix III(6), page 14).