evidence. They note that on July 9, 2003, the Office of the Public Prosecutor stated that the additional evidence being offered was unnecessary. 20. The petitioners assert that subsequently, a new official experts report concluded with regard to the theory and the reenactment of events, that Mrs. Ochoa had “staged a suicide.” They contend that based on the foregoing conclusion, on July 18, 2003, the Office of Special Prosecutor conferred with the Coordinators of the Office of the Public Prosecutor about the proposal to “not bring criminal action”, and this proposal was approved on September 17, 2003. They note that on October 3, 2003, the family members, who had offered the new evidence, filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision with the Coordinator of Prosecuting Attorneys of the Office of the Public Prosecutor, which was denied on October 29, 2003, and the decision to “not bring criminal action” was authorized. They state that the same appellants filed for special constitutional relief through amparo proceedings against this ruling on November 19, 2003 before Chamber “B” of the First District Court for Amparo in Criminal Matters, which was denied on July 22, 2004. They further note that an appeal was filed against the denial of amparo with the Second Panel for Criminal Matters of the First Circuit Court, which was adjudicated on February 24, 2005, granting the constitutional relief (amparo) against the effects of the ruling of October 29, 2003. 21. They contend that under the amparo judgment, the decision giving the authorization to “not bring criminal action” was vacated and the expert evidence offered by the family members was admitted. They also state that on April 21, 2006, the experts nominated by the family members issued their respective opinions that it was likely that Mrs. Digna Ochoa had been the victim of a homicide. 22. The petitioners contend that in May 2006, the Office of the Public Prosecutor scheduled a hearing for the introduction of new evidence to be introduced by official experts. In light of this situation, they claim that the family members brought an appeal before the Seventh Chamber for Criminal Matters of the District Court arguing that the amparo had been granted in order to process the evidence introduced by them and not to hear additional evidence. They allege that on May 31, 2006, the Judge of the Seventh Chamber for Criminal Matters of the District Court denied the appeal and, therefore, on June 5, 2006, another appeal was filed, which was adjudicated by the Second Panel for Criminal Matters of the First Circuit Court in favor of the appellants, ordering the Seventh Chamber of the District Court to grant leave to appeal. 23. The petitioners note that on October 31, 2006, the Seventh Chamber of the District Court for Amparo in Criminal Matters ordered the expert evidence offered by the appellants to be admitted and that no additional evidence be introduced. Notwithstanding, the petitioners contend that, on May 12, 2007, after failing to conduct an adequate examination of the evidence offered by the family members, the Coordinator of Prosecuting Attorneys of the Office of the Public Prosecutor once again proposed to “not bring criminal action.” 24. They allege that on August 19, 2007, Javier Torres Cruz and his uncle Isaías Torres, both peasant farmers from the state of Guerrero, made statements to the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney naming individuals involved in the murder of Mrs. Digna Ochoa, including, as the mastermind behind the crime, a local political boss and rancher of Sierra de Petatlán, Guerrero, who allegedly had Mrs. Digna Ochoa murdered for having uncovered a clandestine “saw mill” located on the ejido [community property] that was part of his property. They assert that after filing the complaint, Mr. Javier Torres was kidnapped and reappeared days later with signs of torture on his body. The petitioners contend that as a result of the aforementioned incidents, a request was made to the IACHR to issue precautionary measures on behalf of Mr. Javier Torres and his family and that, even though the IACHR did grand the measures that were requested, the State did not provide effective protection of the witness. 25. They allege that on September 17, 2007, the review unit of the Coordinating Office of Prosecuting Attorneys of the Office of the Public Prosecutor of the PGJDF rejected the proposal to “not bring criminal action” and issued instructions to continue the investigation. They note that on August 14, 2008, the preliminary investigation was transferred to the Central Office of 5