an appeal, drawing attention to the fact that the judge who denied the arrest warrant had examined a file of more than 11,000 pages, made up of 22 volumes and 10 annexes, in less than 24 hours.192 On April 24, 2014, the PGR filed complaints against the decision to deny the arrest warrant, on grounds that the judge failed to take into account the wealth of evidence that strongly suggested that members of the military had detained Nitza Paola Alvarado Espinoza, José Ángel Alvarado Herrera, and Rocío Irene Alvarado Reyes.193 That challenge stated that: That being the case, there is no question that the material he disallowed points to the likely involvement of Colonel Elfego José Lujan Ruiz in the commission of the crime of forced disappearance of the victims, since the accused, under command responsibility, used the 35th Battalion to commit crimes, that is, by exercising control over his power organization (the battalion), and we are referring to an organization that was acting independently of, contrary to, or separately from the law, which caused personnel attached to it to commit the crime of forced disappearance to the detriment of the victims Nitza Paola Alvarado Espinosa [sic], Rocío Irene Alvarado Reyes, and José Ángel Alvarado Herrera, as reported by those who witnessed the events and by the victims’ relatives who were present when the acts occurred.194 157. On June 27, 2014, the responsible official upheld the denial of the arrest warrant against Elfego José Luján Ruiz.195 As a result, on September 11, 2014, counsel for the victims, Luz Estela Castro Rodríguez, filed for amparo in the federal courts against the Judge of the Fourth Unitary Court of the Seventeenth Circuit for upholding the denial of the arrest warrant against Elfego José Luján Ruiz for the crime of forced disappearance.196 158. On December 31, 2014, that amparo petition was denied by the Third Unitary Court of the Seventeenth Circuit because it deemed groundless, among other things, the petitioner’s arguments that the respondent official failed to meet existing international parameters on forced disappearance or improperly assessed the evidence.197 159. At the same time as the foregoing, steps were being taken in connection with preliminary inquiry AP/PGR/SDHPDSC/UEBPD/M5/50/2014 as a result of the culling of documents that took place on April 8, 2014,198 for the purpose of continuing the search for other responsible parties.199 160. On May 14 and 15, 2014, as part of preliminary inquiry AP/PGR/SDHPDSC/UEBPD/M5/50/2014, the PGR conducted a Public Ministry inspection of the place 192 Annex I. Case file. Volume XXIV, part 2. Official Letter from the PGR to the CNDH, October 20, 2014, page 310 of the pdf. (Annex to the petitioners’ observations on the merits received on June 9, 2015). 193 Annex XX. State’s observations on the merits received on August 26, 2014. Annex I. Case file. Volume XXIII. Formulation of damages by the PGS to the Fourth Unitary Tribunal of the Seventeenth Circuit, April 24, 2014, page 164 of the pdf. (Annex to the petitioners’ observations on the merits received on November 3, 2014). 194 195 Annex I. Case file. Volume XXV, part I. Amparo ruling of December 31, 2014, page 20 of the pdf. (Annex to the petitioners’ observations on the merits received on June 9, 2015). 196 Annex I. Case file. Volume XXV, part I. Amparo ruling of December 31, 2014, page 20 of the pdf. (Annex to the petitioners’ observations on the merits received on June 9, 2015). 197 Annex I. Case file. Volume XXV, part I. Amparo ruling of December 31, 2014, page 148 of the pdf. (Annex to the petitioners’ observations on the merits received on June 9, 2015). 198 Annex I. Case file. Volume XXIII. Communication on the opening of preliminary inquiry AP/PGR/SDHPDSC/UEBPD/M5/2014, April 8, 2014, page 44 of the pdf. (Annex to the petitioners’ observations on the merits received on November 3, 2014). 199 Annex I. State’s observations on the merits received on November 3, 2014.