- 49 - 128. On June 16, 2006, the PGJEM transferred part of the preliminary inquiry against seventeen (17) members of the state police and four (4) members of the municipal police to the First Criminal Trial Judge of the Tenango del Valle Judicial District, state of Mexico, and this gave rise to criminal case 59/2006 for the offense of abuse of authority against María Patricia Romero Hernández, her father and her son,166 but the charges were declared to be unfounded (infra para. 134). 129. On March 8, 2007, the agent of the Public Prosecution Service for ordinary offenses, attached to the First Bureau of the General Directorate on Responsibility of the Office of the Attorney General of the state of Mexico stipulated that the preliminary inquiry should maintain the crime of torture in reserve,167 pursuant to Article 116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the state of Mexico,168 indicating that “no evidence has been gathered that […] would establish the existence of perpetration of the crime of torture.”169 130. Almost one year later, on February 11, 2009, the agent of the Public Prosecution Service authorized to combine the preliminary inquiries relating to the events that occurred on May 3 and 4, 2006, in Texcoco and San Salvador Atenco, again established this caveat.170 On June 6, 2008, the PGJEM ordered that a technical and legal assessment be conducted of the actions taken in the preliminary inquiries. As a result of this, several irregularities were detected and the Internal Comptroller of the PGJEM and the Special Prosecutor for offenses committed by public servants were advised of this.171 131. On July 15, 2009, the PGJEM received preliminary inquiry AP/PGR/FEVIM/03/05-2006, because the FEVIM had waived jurisdiction in its favor172 (infra para. 147). 166 Cf. The State’s brief before the Commission of October 15, 2012 (evidence file, folios 14337 to 14339). 167 Cf. CNDH Annual Report, 2007 (evidence file, folio 23133). Article 116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the state of Mexico indicates “Article 116. If the records in the case file of the procedures conducted by the agent of the Public Prosecution Service do not contain evidence that proves the elements of the corpus delicti and the probable responsibility of the accused so that the file can be forwarded to the jurisdictional organ, and it appears that other procedures cannot be conducted, but subsequently further information could be added in order to proceed with the inquiry, the judicial authority shall order that the case file be maintained in reserve until that information is obtained and, meanwhile, shall order the judicial police to conduct investigations to try and clarify the facts. The decision of the Agent of the Public Prosecution Service to maintain the inquiry in reserve shall be reviewed by the corresponding Assistant Regional Attorney, through the Agent of the Public Prosecution Service, Assistant to the Attorney General, to whom the case file shall be forwarded within 48 hours. The Agent of the Public Prosecution Service, Assistant to the Attorney General, shall prepare a draft resolution for the consideration and analysis of the Assistant Regional Attorney, who shall take a decision within the following 15 working days. This decision shall be notified to the plaintiff or complainant by the Agent of the Public Prosecution Service responsible for reviewing the file of the preliminary inquiry, on the day following that on which he receives the file from the Agent of the Public Prosecution Service, Assistant to the Attorney General.” The State’s brief before the Commission of October 15, 2012 (evidence file, folios 14339 and 14340). 168 Decision of the Agent of the Public Prosecution Service attached to the First Bureau of the General Directorate on Responsibility of the Office of the Attorney General of the state of Mexico of March 8, 2007 (evidence file, folio 38767). 169 170 Cf. The State’s brief before the Commission of October 15, 2012 (evidence file, folio 14340). 171 Cf. The State’s brief before the Commission of October 15, 2012 (evidence file, folios 14340 and 14341). Cf. FEVIMTRA communication C/DAP/2218/2009, received on July 15, 2009 (evidence file, folio 5021); Order to constitute the First Criminal Trial Court in Toluca of October 15, 2014 (evidence file, folios 1642 and 1643); Order on the constitutional time limit issued by the Toluca First Criminal Trial Court of October 18, 2014 (evidence file, folio 2490), and Order on the constitutional time limit issued by the Toluca First Criminal Trial Court of October 27, 2014 (evidence file, folios 4390 and 4391). 172