terrorism, established in the Federal Law of 1996. 35 55. That same day, the victims were released by the UEIS. 36 While they were leaving the building of that unit, officials of the Federal Investigation Agency approached and detained them once again in the UEITA, where they were deprived of liberty without being informed of the grounds of their detention nor of their rights. 37 B.3. On the investigation and proceedings against Jorge Marcial and Gerardo Tzompaxtle Tecpile and Gustavo Robles López 56. On January 17, 2006, while being interrogated by UEITA officials, the victims refused to answer and reiterated that they had already declared before the UEIS. The bottom of the statement indicated that “the treatment that they received from the PGR personnel was proper and all statements were offered without coercion or any violence.” 38 In the early hours of the same day, PGR staff informed the victims that they were being detained with regard to a preliminary investigation on the crime of terrorism, established in the Federal Law of 1996. 39 57. That same day. an agent of the OPP attached to the UEITA requested that the Fourteenth District Court for Federal Criminal Proceedings in the Federal District issue an order of arraigo of ninety days against the victims. The following day, the victims were notified that the judge of that Court had ordered the arraigo for ninety days so that the investigation against them could continue. 40 58. The federal authority requested that the arrest warrant against the accused be withdrawn and also the implementation of the criminal action for the crime of terrorism established in the Federal Law against Organized Crime, assigning the preliminary investigation to the Third District Court for Cf. Judicial Branch of the Federation. Ruling that resolved the appeal against the order of pre-trial detention of April 22, 2007, February 16, 2007 (evidence file, f. 22 et seq.). 35 Cf. Special Note No. SIEDO/UEIS/281/2006, which orders liberty according to the conditions established in the law for the accused with regard to the preliminary investigation PGR/SIEDO/UEIS/2003 (evidence file, f. 28563 et seq.). 36 Cf. Judicial Branch of the Federation. Ruling that resolved the appeal against the order of pre-trial detention of April 22, 2007, February 16, 2007 (evidence file, f. 22 et seq.). 37 38 Cf. SEIDO. Statements of Gerardo Tzompaxtle Tecpile, Jorge Marcial Tzompaxtle Tecpile and Gustavo Robles López before the UEITA of the SIEDO, A. P. PC3R/SIEDO/UEITA/004/2006, January 17, 2006 (evidence file, f. 358 et seq.). Cf. Judicial Branch of the Federation. Ruling that resolved the appeal against the order of pre-trial detention of April 22, 2006, February 16, 2007 (evidence file, 22 et seq.). 39 40 That court indicated the following: “In this case, the evidentiary data are sufficient, at least for now, to meet the legal requisites to decree the requested arraigo. [...] Therefore, with the evidence presented, it is thought that the agent of the Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the UEITA of the SEIDO may have influenced the prosecution and the processing of the preliminary investigation and, thus, the action of justice and the clarification of the unlawful acts being investigated. This is especially true in this case. The offenses attributed to the persons subject to arraigo are considered grave under Article 194 of the Federal Code of 1996 in relation to the Federal Law against Organized Crime, which would increase the probability that, by not acceding to the request, as has been stated, Gerardo Tzompaxtle Tecpile, Jorge Marcial Tzompaxtle Tecpile and Gustavo Robles Lopez could evade the action of justice in view of the nature of the matters under investigation and their personal circumstances. In addition to how the evidentiary material is assessed, it is evident that the whereabouts of the accused must be ensured while the authorities take various actions and gather the evidence that would tend to bolster the preliminary investigation in order to ultimately undertake criminal proceedings; thus, justifying the requested precautionary measure.” That court also requested the following: “Inform the authority […] that it is obligated to communicate, the first day of each month, to this District Court the actions and the progress that the integration of the aforementioned investigation achieves and that supports the existence of the precautionary measure without it implying that this jurisdictional body decide on the written evidence provided but rather for the sole effect to note that the official of the Public Prosecutor’s Office is gathering the evidence alluded to in his request, which gives rise to the lawfulness of this measure. Advise the official of the Federation that, in the event that he does not comply with what is here ordered, it will be understood that there are no grounds to continue and the house arraigo will be lifted [...]. Inform the official of the Public Prosecutor’s Office […] attached to the UEITA of the SEIDO and the Prosecutor General’s Office that the term of ninety days ends on April 17, 2006 [...].” Cf. Judicial Branch of the Federation. UEITA of the SEIDO. Order of Arraigo 03/2006, decreed by the Fourteenth District Court for Federal Criminal Proceedings, January 18, 2006 (evidence file, f. 382 et seq.). 17