58 representatives argued that these irregularities are related to the evidence produced regarding the possession and use of weapons and drugs (inter alia, some expert opinions and a sodium rhodizonate test), and other items of evidence furnished in the statements made initially by the victims. The Court considers appropriate to review the final conclusions at the judicial levels regarding these issues. 144. In relation to the controversies over the weapons, the Court observes that the judgment of the Second Collegiate Tribunal rejected each one of the arguments put forward by the defense counsel of the victims indicating, inter alia, that: a) in relation to the expert opinion related to the identification of the alleged firearms, “even though [the expert witnesses] did not prepare their report in written form,”220 “this does not imply that it is invalid” in view of their appearance and their description of the firearms; b) “the fact that [...] the expert witnesses [...] dedicated a short amount of time,” “which is surely the result of the expertise they posses” because of they work for the Federal Judicial Police,” “lacks juridical importance;” c) “in general, firearms have [their] data engraved” which “facilitates their legal classification without having to demonstrate the operations or experiments on which their opinions were based;” d) “it is not possible to accuse the military personnel of not having brought the detainees without delay,” “it was less feasible to place the instruments and objects of the crime at disposal,” and e) “in no way” can the alleged negligence “lead to the inexistence of the weapons.”221 145. The Court emphasizes that this Second Collegiate Tribunal acquitted Mr. Montiel Flores of the crime of carrying a .”22 caliber Remington rifle,” given that, in one of his statements he “emphatically denied” carrying such rifle and because Mr. Cabrera’s testimony did not incriminate him in this respect. Despite the foregoing, the Second Collegiate Tribunal confirmed the criminal responsibility of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel for the crime of carrying firearms intended for the exclusive demonstration and, at the same time, selling clothing. “On May 2, 1999, I was […] outside the house, talking to an old man who [...] was 82 years, [her] wife [...] was also chatting at that moment [...]. [He] did not see that people were armed and he only [saw] that the soldiers came [there] firing their weapons [...] he [did] not see either that they were soldiers, since usually soldiers arrive or used to arrive at a community and identify themselves; they did not identify themselves with words, but with shots, they run and suddenly, and [...] Salomé Sanchez Ortiz got shot […]. [He] wanted to be clear [that] they never had weapons, because […] they are [not] fighting against life; to carry a weapon would imply an intention to attack someone [...].” Cf. Statement rendered by Mr. Rodolfo Montiel Flores at the public hearing, supra note 177. Moreover, Mr. Cabrera Garcia indicated in his affidavit that "the soldiers came firing their weapons, then everyone run.” Cf. Statement rendered by Mr. Teodoro Cabrera Garcia before a public notary, supra note 147, folio 1192. 220 The expert witnesses attested to having seen “a semi-automatic pistol, .380 caliber, Pietro Bereta, manufactured by Browning Arms Company; a .22-caliber Remington rifle, Model 550-1; a .22 rifle, bold action, no serial number or brand; a .22 caliber Remington rifle, model 550-1; possessing or carrying these weapons is allowed, provided the provisions and limitations established by the Federal Firearms and Explosives Act are observed, a crime prescribed and punished in article 9, section I and II second paragraph[,] respectively, in relation to article 81 first paragraph of said Act. Moreover, the 45caliber Colt semi-automatic pistol, serial number 85900G70; and the 7.62 mm M1A Springfield Armoy rifle, serial number 035757, are the ones intended for the exclusive use of the Army, Navy and Mexican Air Force, a crime prescribed and punished in articles 11. b) and 11.c), in relation to article 83 sections II and III, respectively, of [said] Federal Firearms and Explosives Act.”.” Cf. Expert report in relation to the identification of the firearms of May 6, 1999 (Preliminary Inquiry N° 33/CC/99) (record of annexes to the answer to the application, volume XXIII, folio 9791). 221 Cf. Judgment of August 21, 2002 issued by the First Collegiate Tribunal, supra note 148, folios 14593 and 14596.