of the human rights violations of ecologists Teodoro Cabrera and Rodolfo Montiel in the Sierra of Petatlán, Guerrero. 15. They assert that on August 9, 1999, Mrs. Digna Ochoa was kidnapped for a short time by unidentified individuals, who stole several personal items of hers. They contend that on September 3, 1999, written threats were sent to the PRODH Center and addressed to the staff of the Center. They claim that one of the threatening letters was written on one of Mrs. Digna Ochoa’s own personal calling cards that had been unlawfully taken from her when she was kidnapped. They note that the foregoing events prompted the IACHR to issue precautionary measures on behalf of Mrs. Digna Ochoa and other staff members of the PRODH Center. 16. The petitioners claim that during September and October 1999, staff members of the PRODH Center received threatening letters and Mrs. Ochoa found a voter identification card at her residence that had been unlawfully taken from her during the kidnapping. They contend that on October 13, 1999, an anonymous message containing a bomb threat appeared at the PRODH Center. They further note that on October 28, 1999, Mrs. Ochoa was held for a few hours by unidentified individuals at her own residence, blindfolded, tied to her bed with an open gas tank left by her side. The petitioners allege that the day after this incident, members of the PRODH Center found a file in the office that said “Suicidal Power.” They note that, as a result of the aforementioned incidents, the IACHR requested the Inter-American Court to order provisional measures on behalf of Mrs. Digna Ochoa and several staff members of the PRODH Center, which were issued under a decision on November 17, 1999 and remained in force until August 28, 2001. 17. They state that, on October 19, 2001, Mrs. Digna Ochoa y Plácido was found dead in her office. They note that it was established in the investigation report on the removal of the body that the body presented bruising injuries from fire arm projectile shots in the left temporal region, on the anterior-internal face of the left thigh and on the posterior face of the left thigh. It further stated that the body of Mrs. Ochoa presented “two irregular-shaped dark ecchymosis’ on the anterior-internal face, middle third of the right thigh” and that it was established that a shot had been fired into one of the chairs that was located near the place where the body was found. They assert that the body of Mrs. Ochoa had red-color latex gloves on her hands, and a white powder, apparently flour, on both hands, was also scattered around the scene. They assert that a note was also found at the scene that read “PROS SONS OF BITCHES, IF YOU CONTINUE ANOTHER ONE WILL GET KNOCKED OFF, WARNING THIS IS NO LIE.” 18. The petitioners note that in the forensic expert’s report conducted by PGDJ experts on December 20, 2001, it was concluded that there was a struggle at the scene of the crime, because a button of Mrs. Ochoa’s shirt was pulled off and her hairband was lying on the ground. They also claim that in the preliminary findings and reenactment of the events conducted by the PGJDF experts, it was established that Mrs. Digna Ochoa had been the victim of a homicide. Nonetheless, they assert that on June 28, 2002, one of the PGJDF experts conducted a psychological analysis of Mrs. Digna Ochoa and came to the conclusion that “she was in a vulnerable enough state to attempt to take her own life.” They contend that according to the report of official experts, the suicide theory was boosted by the fact that the weapon used in the homicide was alleged to belong to Mrs. Ochoa herself. 19. The petitioners claim that the preliminary investigation was transferred on August 1, 2002 to a Special Prosecuting Attorney in order to specifically investigate the death of Mrs. Digna Ochoa. They allege that on May 6, 2003, the representative of the family of Mrs. Digna Ochoa offered forensic chemical and crime scene evidence to the experts, which was rejected on May 7, 2003, and they were required to clarify the purpose or objective that they were pursuing in offering such evidence. They claim that after clarifying the purpose of the evidence they were introducing, on May 19, 2003, the Office of the Special Prosecuting Attorney once again refused to accept said evidence noting that it should have been approved by the official experts previously. The petitioners note that despite the refusal to accept the additional evidence, the official experts determined that it would be irrelevant to examine the new 4