sent by the alleged mastermind to take the life of Mrs. Digna Ochoa had also been murdered. It stated that when Mr. Jesús Ochoa appeared and also filed a complaint against the same alleged mastermind, he did so based on “hearsay testimony” and, after the office of the prosecuting attorney undertook several inquiries with the State of Guerrero, it established that there was no apparent reason or motive to presume that the person accused of being the alleged mastermind could have ever viewed his interests prejudiced by Mrs. Ochoa professional pursuits. 37. The State asserts that even though some mistakes may have been made during the investigation, they were detected and did not have any bearing on how the case unfolded and concluded. It notes that during the investigation, more than 1500 steps were taken to gather evidence, which included 282 statements, 269 expert examinations and 595 reports from the police and other authorities. 38. The State argues that it has laid out in detail the motives, legal reasons and grounds that led it to determine that the cause of death of Mrs. Digna Ochoa was suicide. According to the State, the theory of suicide, which was the finding of the Office of the Public Prosecutor, is supported by a psychodynamic study of Mrs. Digna Ochoa’s personality, based on material that made it possible to establish a “psychodynamic logic” based on analysis of different documents that were gathered, such as her personal diary, correspondence, interviews and other significant elements, in combination with the scientific and technical examination of the evidence gleaned from the preliminary investigation which proved without a shadow of a doubt that it was not a homicide. 39. It contends that the alleged tampering with the scene of the crime cannot be attributed to the investigating authority inasmuch as the first person to arrive on the scene was an individual who identified himself as a medical doctor and inspected the body of Mrs. Ochoa y Plácido prior to the authorities doing so. It argues that the expert testimony offered by the petitioners did not comport with the facts, their approach was based on an erroneous theory and they committed methodological errors in collecting their evidence and, therefore, their evidence lacked technical scientific value. It claims that in comparing and contrasting the expert testimony offered by the family members to the other evidence that was collected during the preliminary investigation conducted by the Office of the Public Prosecutor, no evidence can be found to support the theory of homicide. 40. The State provided a similar account to the one provided by the petitioners as to the different prosecutorial and judicial decisions that led to the Office of the Public Prosecutor’s determination to “not bring criminal action.” It claims that said remedies were properly heard respecting the right to due process of the law and that just because in the end the petitioners did not win the day, does not mean that there was a violation of the American Convention. 41. It asserts that the decisions of the Office of the Public Prosecutor can be subject to judicial oversight, which was always available to the family members during the entire proceeding to challenge any acts of the PGJDF that it deemed prejudicial to its rights. Specifically, the State maintains that the Federal Judge who denied on August 19, 2011, the latest amparo request for constitutional relief, did so on the basis of legal deficiencies on the part of the petitioners, inasmuch as they raised the same arguments as they had done for the “motion for reconsideration”, without laying out any logical and legal reasoning to support the concepts of violation of rights or the specific reasons why the decision of March 14, 2011 infringed their rights. 42. The State claims that in the latest amparo ruling, after examining the exhibits, the judge drew the conclusion that based on the analysis that had been conducted by the Office of the Public Prosecutor, the claims of the family members were erroneous as to the involvement of a third assailant at the scene of the crime, as well as the alleged ante mortem injuries on the body of Mrs. Digna Ochoa. The State notes that in the view of the authority in charge of the investigation, the different expert witness opinions that were offered during the investigation is not evidence in and of itself, but is rather a group of technical opinions, which is useful as 8