the Assistant Attorney General for Preliminary Investigations, and was ultimately sent to the Central Office of the Prosecuting Attorney for Homicide Investigations of the PDJDF. 26. The petitioners assert that on February 12, 2010, an alleged mastermind of the murder of Mrs. Digna Ochoa was arrested. They claim that the Office of the Public Prosecutor interviewed him and showed him three newspaper clippings that referred to his involvement, to which the alleged mastermind responded “that it was false and that I have nothing to add.” The petitioners contend that the Office of the Public Prosecutor did not thoroughly interview him based on the version of the facts that appeared in the case file linking him to the incidents. 27. They argue that on August 20, 2010, the deputy of the Office of the Public Prosecutor proposed for the third time to “not bring criminal action.” They state that the family members filed a motion for reconsideration of decision against this proposal. They note that on March 14, 2011, they were notified of the decision of the Coordinator of the Prosecuting Attorneys of the Office of the Public Prosecutor, which rejected their arguments and authorized for the third time the decision to “not bring criminal action.” They note that they filed a new amparo claim for constitutional relief against this decision before the Seventh Chamber of the District Court for Amparo in Criminal Matters in the Federal District [of Mexico City], which was denied on August 19, 2011 stating that the obligation of the Office of the Public Prosecutor was to receive and examine evidence and that the Office of the Public Prosecutor still has the monopoly over bringing criminal actions. 28. The petitioners state that they pursued and exhausted all domestic remedies available to them as required under Article 46 of the Convention; however, these remedies were not adequate or effective. They claim that the State violated Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention inasmuch as it did not ensure a serious and thorough investigation within a reasonable period of time, in order to determine the causes and circumstances of the threats leveled at Mrs. Ochoa and her eventual death. They contend that ever since the initial investigations, multiple irregularities linked to the examination of the crime scene and the handling of the body were committed and that the State has not duly investigated a variety of leads that emerged over the course of the investigation. 29. With respect to the irregularities at the scene of the crime, the petitioners note, among other things, that there were failures in the control over the scene of the crime; the experts made farfetched interpretations of their test results; the authorities did not establish whether the scene of the crime had been tampered with nor did they establish with accuracy what persons had entered the crime scene prior to the arrival of the assistant attorneys of the Office of the Public Prosecutor. As to the examination of the body of Mrs. Ochoa, they argue that no appropriate description was taken of the cadaveric phenomena nor of the body temperature in order to know whether or not the body had been moved from its original position. They contend that no detailed description of the injuries was recorded, such as those noticed on the thighs and neck, which would have made it possible to determine whether Mrs. Ochoa was assaulted prior to her death. They also claim that the exact spots where the blood was located was not determined either, nor was a suitable examination conducted either to verify whether the blood was the result of splattering as a consequence of the body being moved or of a sudden shot. 30. They assert that the authorities consistently refused to admit the evidence offered by the family as an aid in solving the case and that, consequently, the family members were compelled by the Office of the Public Prosecutor to pursue legal remedies to question the refusal to continue the investigation. They contend that the proceedings were marred by bias and partiality. Specifically, they claim that the Office of the Public Prosecutor issued several decisions to “not bring criminal action,” and every time this was done, even though doubt was cast on these decisions by the additional evidence offered by the family members, the decision would be reviewed by the Office of the Public Prosecutor itself, which is the body of final review of the decision, and therefore the full range of evidence could not come to be examined in the case by any criminal court judge. 6