caused the injury to Mirey Trueba’s left leg and his subsequent death. The State further indicates that the family did not file for amparo constitutional relief or any other remedy against the resolution that decided the appeal filed with the Supreme Military Court, which means that the judgment was upheld as res judicata. 37. With respect to the hearings, the State claims that the proceedings in the military court were open to the public, announced by general orders from the garrison, and notified to the corresponding authorities for all legal purposes,12 and so the military court acted with transparency. 38. Furthermore, the State says that the next of kin did not exercise their right to register as third-party plaintiffs in the proceeding as they failed to notify the investigating authorities so that they might be recognized as such. The State holds that in spite of that, on March 18, 1999, the family was notified of the filing of the criminal case and the crime for which criminal proceedings were being instituted against Lt. Col. (Infantry) Morales Rodríguez and that the Military Attorney General’s Office informed the representatives of COSYDDHHAC at a meeting on October 3, 2000, of the status of the criminal proceeding brought against the person accused of the killing of Mirey Trueba Arciniega. Based on the foregoing, the State maintains that the petitioners’ claim that the victim’s next-ofkin were unable to register as third-party plaintiffs alongside the Military Prosecution Service in the proceeding because of the distance between Baborigame, Chihuahua, and the city of Mazatlán, Sinaloa, is not attributable to the State because there is no record of these persons having indicated that there was any impediment to their appearance at the place where the trial of the accused took place. In that connection, the State argues that the petitioners’ allegation of unwarranted delay is false inasmuch as they omitted basic procedures that would have given them standing to act as third-party plaintiffs under the terms of the Constitution and laws, given that it is up to the recognized third-party plaintiff to initiate the necessary steps, and it is not incumbent upon the authorities to locate them in order to inform them. The State adds that in the instant petition COSYDDHAC is not a third-party plaintiff. Therefore, they argue that legal due process was observed and that the domestic remedies were available to the petitioners, who, nonetheless, failed to use them. 39. As to the petitioners’ argument that the next of kin received no information on the case and that they were prevented access to the remedies under domestic law, the State claims that to be untrue, since, according to the State, on November 13, 1998, the National Human Rights Commission closed the investigation and notified Mr. Tomás Trueba Loera that it lacked jurisdiction to take up the case as the alleged culprit was being tried by a military tribunal. That 12 Communication from the State of March 17, 2005. 9