91 assumption, the expert witness indicated that “deliberately maintaining the investigation within the state jurisdiction, even though there were grounds for attributing jurisdiction to the federal level, had another consequence that was equally determinant for impunity: it prevented the application of the specific legislation and the use of the material and legal means of investigation established for organized crime, which are not applicable to ordinary crime.” He added that the foregoing resulted in the cases remaining in the hands of “the same state authorities who had manifested such scant diligence.”395 362. The State did not present arguments on this point. However, it attached a report in which it referred to various criteria that regulate the transfer of cases to the federal jurisdiction. The report mentions the agreement between the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic and the Office of the Attorney General for the state of Chihuahua to carry out joint investigative actions, a draft constitutional amendment on the issue, and the establishment of the Special Prosecutor’s Office to investigate the murders of women that fell within the federal jurisdiction.396 363. The Tribunal observes that the testimonial and expert evidence presented by the representatives mentions, first, that this transfer should have occurred owing to the lack of technical capacity of the Chihuahua authorities. The Court has not found any arguments regarding domestic law that allow it to examine the attribution of jurisdiction to the federal jurisdiction as a result of the irregularities found in this case. Second, no arguments have been submitted on the grounds that attributed jurisdiction to the federal jurisdiction, apart from the presumption that the impunity in the case implies the participation of public officials or organized crime. In addition, no arguments were provided concerning how the transfer to the federal jurisdiction functions. In brief, the representatives failed to present arguments on evidence and applicable domestic law that would allow the Court to examine how the failure to transfer the crimes and to apply the legal measures corresponding to organized crime contributed to the ineffectiveness of the judicial proceedings. (c) Alleged irregularities relating to the fragmentation of the cases and the failure to investigate them in context 364. The representatives alleged that the “individualization of the investigations into the murders” becomes a “failure to seek the truth and […] justice for the victims.” They indicated that “it is hardly credible that just one individual […] can be involved” in the murder “and that it has no connection whatsoever to the murders of the other seven women.” They added that “it is implausible” that this individual “by himself […] killed Esmeralda, disposed of her in a place where there were another seven bodies in similar circumstances and did something to accelerate the decomposition process […] in the upper part of [her] body.” Furthermore, they alleged that “the case sub judice cannot be examined out of the context of the situation of serious and systematic abuse against girls and women present in Ciudad Juárez for the last 16 years.” 365. The State indicated that “the common element in the three cases is the discovery of the bodies in the same field” and affirmed that “the circumstances of the cases were specifically examined” from this perspective; however, “in the context of the investigation, the cases were dealt with individually without disregarding other possible common characteristics, but also without insisting on the connections between them,” owing to the fact that “each case had specific characteristics that meant that it 395 Testimony of expert witness Castresana Fernández, supra note 137, folios 2902 and 2903. 396 Cf. Report on Mexico produced by CEDAW, supra note 64, folios 1980 and 1981.