- 53 - Federal Judiciary’s Commission on the Creation of New Organs to consolidate the amparos in a federal court of Toluca,” and this was accepted. 196 139. In August 2016, the State prepared a work plan for the investigation of the case under which it was proposed to summon victims who were on board the trucks and police agents who took part in the transfer of the detainees and the onward journey; to expand the criminal action against the 28 police agents on behalf of other victims, and to forward the Merits Report to the PGR, insofar as “it establishes the presumed participation of federal public servants in the facts.”197 140. Also, according to information provided by the State, twenty-four (24) officials received administrative sanctions.198 C.3.3 Case 166/2014 (relating to the eleven women presumed victims in this case) 141. On September 12, 2014, the PGJEM requested arrest warrants against ten (10) doctors from the Prevention and Social Rehabilitation Service and eleven (11) forensic physicians, owing to omissions when confronted by complaints and indications of torture, as well as an agent of the state Public Prosecution Service owing to his possible responsibility by omission for the crime of torture committed against the eleven women and two more who are not part of this case. 199 These arrest warrants were issued on October 10, 2014. 142. According to the most recent information provided by the State, at the date this judgment is delivered, it had obtained twenty-two (22) arrest warrants, ten (10) of which had been executed, and twelve (12) resulted in voluntary appearances before the court.200 According to the State, of the twenty-one (21) doctors prosecuted, five (5) appealed the order of imprisonment, and their appeal is pending a decision. Another five (5) applied for amparo, and this was granted while the judge of the case determined whether an offense had been committed. In light of this, the Public Prosecution Service filed an application for amparo against the order of preventive detention, which was granted only until a new ruling had been made, but this was also an order for preventive detention; consequently, it filed an appeal for review, which is pending a decision. Also, in compliance with a final decision, the judge of the case issued five release orders owing to The State explained that the measure was taken “in order to avoid contradictory decisions and to ensure that they were decided promptly.” The State’s report on compliance with the recommendations of the Merits Report of September 5, 2016 (evidence file, folio 30518). 196 Work Plan for the investigation of Case No. 12,846 Mariana Selvas et al.” Annex 1 to the Mexican State’s fifth report on compliance of August 2, 2016 (evidence file, folios 24535 and 24536). 197 Cf. The State’s report on compliance with the recommendations of the Merits Report of September 5, 2016 (evidence file, folios 30533 and 30534). 198 Cf. Order on the constitutional time limit issued by the Toluca First Criminal Trial Court of October 18, 2014 (evidence file, folios 2490 to 2492); Order on the constitutional time limit issued by the Toluca First Criminal Trial Court of October 21,, 2014 (evidence file, folios 3491 and 3492), Order on the constitutional time limit issued by the Toluca First Criminal Trial Court of October 27, 2014 (evidence file, folios 4391 and 2492), and the State’s brief of March 24, 2015 (evidence files, folios 14444 and 14445). 199 Cf. Report of the Prosecutor General of the state of Mexico of October 31, 2017 (evidence file, folios 38187 to 38189), and The State’s report on compliance with the recommendations of the Merits Report of September 5, 2016 (evidence file, folio 30509). 200