crimes: a) violation of the Federal Law against Organized Crime, with the purpose of committing terrorism and b) bribery. The judge sentenced them to a term of four years for the former and three months for the latter. 54 70. The Court notes that various actions were taken by the Tenth District Court of the State of Veracruz. Between May and August 2007, testimonies were taken and analyzed, studies of the experts in graphoscopy, hand-writing, forensic science, samples of numbers and signatures were compared, as well as photographs of the questioned documents and the changes in the rulings were analyzed, among other procedures. 71. On October 16, 2008, in response to an appeal, the Second Collegiate Criminal Court of the Seventh Circuit, located in Boca del Río, Veracruz, acquitted the victims of the crime of terrorism and confirmed the conviction of bribery. That Court considered that the punishment for bribery had been served and, therefore, ordered their immediate release. That same day, they were released after having been deprived of their liberty for two years, nine months and five days. 55 C. On the writs of amparo 72. On March 6, 2006, the victim’s defense filed a writ of amparo before the Judge of the First District Criminal Court for Amparo in the Federal District, denouncing the deprivation of liberty of the victims under arraigo. This recourse was dismissed since the matter had been resolved after the arraigo had ended and the detainees were under a judicial order. 56 73. On March 15, 2006, the victims filed a writ of amparo denouncing their situation, which was dismissed with the argument that “at the moment of resolving it, the detainees had been assigned a trial judge.” 74. That same day the victims filed another indirect amparo, this time regarding the alleged obstruction of their right to an adequate defense since the Prosecutor General denied them and their defense access to the investigation. The case was forwarded to the First District Judge for Amparo in Criminal Matters. The writ was dismissed due to a change in the legal situation of the victims. 75. On April 5, 2006, the victims filed a new writ of amparo before the First District Judge of Amparos in Criminal Matters due to their possible transfer to a facility of maximum security. This recourse was rejected because the victims were deprived of their liberty under arraigo and they were not in a detention center, which were essential requisites for their transfer to a facility of maximum security. A recourse of review was filed against that rejection, which was heard by the First Collegiate Court in Criminal Matters in the Federal District, which confirmed the decision. 57 D. On decisions of national and international bodies 76. On November 30, 2006, the National Human Rights Commission offered a proposal of reconciliation to the victims based on the complaints presented by their defense regarding their unlawful and arbitrary detention. On January 17, 2007, the victim’s defense accepted the proposal of reconciliation. On January 31, the National Commission issued a bulletin in which it indicated its 54 Cf. Judicial Branch of the Federation. Twelfth District Court in the State of Veracruz with its seat in Córdoba. Judgment of May 14, 2008 (evidence file, f. 23943 et seq.). 55 Cf. Judicial Branch of the Federation. First Unitary Court for Criminal Matters of the First Circuit. Criminal case 207/2008, for the appeals filed by the defendants Gerardo Tzompaxtle Tecpile, Jorge Marcial Tzompaxtle Tecpile and Gustavo Robles López (evidence file, f. 29471 et seq.). 56 Cf. Judicial Branch of the Federation. Collegiate Court for Criminal Matters of the First Circuit. File of review of amparo 541-2006, amparo no. 240/2006-VII-B, plaintiffs Gustavo Robles López et al. concerning their order of arraigo, detention and transfer (evidence file, f. 28589 et seq.). 57 Cf. Judicial Branch of the Federation. Council of the Federal Judicature. File of review of amparo 741-2006, amparo No. 350/2006-VII-B, plaintiffs Jorge Marcial Tzompaxtle Tecpile, Gerardo Tzompaxtle Tecpile and Gustavo Robles López, regarding their order of detention and transfer (evidence file, f. 28778 et seq.). 20