69 169. Without prejudice to the foregoing, this Tribunal notes that the Committee against Torture, on its visit to Mexico in 2001, indicated that "[d]espite the binding rules in the Constitution and laws [of Mexico] on the inadmissibility as evidence of statements obtained under duress, in practice it is extraordinarily difficult for an accused to have a confession that has been forced out of him excluded from the body of evidence. In practice, when an accused retracts the confession on which the Public Prosecutor’s Office has based the decision to commit him for trial, complaining that he was forced to make it under torture or duress, the courts have no independent proceeding of ascertaining whether the confession was made voluntarily.”263 170. Taking into account the aforementioned background, the Court proceeds to analyze whether, in the instant case, a coerced confession was used. It is worth mentioning that Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel, who could not read or write (supra para. 149) recorded their fingerprints on the declarations, in which they confessed to criminal activities at three procedural opportunities:    In the statement rendered before the Public Prosecutor’s Office on May 4, 1999, Mr. Montiel Flores admitted: i) the possession of a weapon for the exclusive use of the Army, specifically a .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol; ii) the possession, without a permit, of a .22 caliber rifle and iii) the possession and cultivation of marijuana. Moreover, Mr. Cabrera admitted: i) the possession of a weapon, for the exclusive use of the army, specifically a 7.62 mm MI rifle, and magazine, ii) having fired a weapon against the Army and iii) being a member of an illegal armed group (EPR).264 In the statement rendered before the Public Prosecutor’s Office on May 6, 1999, Mr. Montiel Flores modified his initial confession; therefore, he only ratified the part of the possession of the firearm for the exclusive use of the Army (a .45 caliber pistol) and the cultivation of marijuana. In addition, Mr. Cabrera García modified the content of his initial statement since he only admitted the possession of the firearm (a 7.62 caliber MI rifle).265 In the preliminary statement of May 7, 1999, before the First Instance Court, Mr. Montiel Flores only admitted the possession of the firearm, whereas Mr. Cabrera ratified having been in the possession of the rifle and the magazine.266 171. After these statements, the victims have never admitted again having committed an illicit act. The defense in the domestic proceeding alleged that: “[…] it springs that my client[s] were forced to sign papers, without knowing the content thereof, which resulted to be their self-incriminating statements rendered at the Public Prosecutor's Office, after they had been confin[ed], tortured, both physically and mentally, and threatened to cause damage to their families if they fail to render such a statement; I request this court not to give probative value when resolving the instant case.”267 263 United Nations. Committee against Torture. Report on Mexico of May 25, 2003, supra note 203, para. 202. 264 Statements of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel of May 4, 1999, supra note 142, folios 8198 and 8199. 265 Statements of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel of May 6, 1999, supra note 132, folios 9778 and 9784. 266 Preliminary statements of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel of May 7, 1999, supra note 144, folios 9835 to 9838 and 9838 to 9842. 267 Cf. Arguments put forward on July 25, 2000 before the Fifth District Court of Iguala, Guerrero, by the private defense counsel of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel (record of annexes to the answer to the application, volume XXVI, folio 11111).