information related directly to the allegations of torture and injuries to Messrs. García Cruz and Sánchez Silvestre33. B. 2) Criminal proceedings for the crime of “possession of firearms for the exclusive use of the Army, the Navy and the Air Force; Criminal conspiracy and Rebellion” 38. On June 8, 1997, “the Federal Public Prosecutor brought a legal action” against Messrs. García Cruz and Sánchez Silvestre, “placing them at the disposal of the Seventh District Court [of Criminal Matters of the Federal District].” That same day “a public hearing took place […] in which both gave their preliminary statements.” On June 11, “the Seventh District judge issued a formal order of imprisonment against [both].” 34 39. On June 24, 1997, Messrs. García Cruz and Sánchez Silvestre “rescinded the appointment of the court-appointed counsel” and designated a private defense counsel.35 40. On August 28, 1998, the Seventh District Court for Criminal Matters of the Federal District “issued the first instance judgment, declaring [them] criminally responsible for committing the offence of ‘possession of firearms for the exclusive use of the Army, the Navy and the Air Force’ and imposing a three-year prison sentence and a fine of twelve days.” The defense counsel of both defendants and the official of the Federal Public Prosecutor filed appeals.36 41. On August 21, 1999, the First Unitary Court of the First Circuit of Mexico issued a judgment which “confirmed the prison sentence ordered by the court of first instance and reduced the fine imposed.” With respect to the evidentiary value of the statements made by Messrs. García Cruz and Sánchez Silvestre, the Court indicated that “although it is true that the medical certificates in the case file mention injuries to those sentenced here today, stating that they did indeed show signs of injury […] it is also true that these certificates do not effectively demonstrate that the injuries were inflicted by their captors to extract incriminating statements, since no medical evidence whatsoever was produced to demonstrate that situation; therefore it cannot be said that their statements lack any validity[…].”37 42. Messrs. García Cruz and Sánchez Silvestre “filed an appeal against the abovementioned sentence of the First Unitary Court of the First Circuit.”38 On October 18, 1999, the Third Collegiate Court of the First Circuit of Criminal Matters issued a ruling on the appeal, in which it 33 On November 5, 1997 the private defense counsel of Messrs. García Cruz and Sánchez Silvestre asked the Seventh Judge to “notify the Public Prosecutor for a proper investigation into the torture they were subjected to.” On November 12, “[t]he Public Prosecutor submitted a report to the Seventh Judge, indicating [… t]hat, in the judgment of the undersigned, no evidence was found to corroborate the crime of TORTURE referred to in Article 3 of the Federal Law to Prevent and Punish Torture […].” (infra note 69) Cf. Report on Merits No. 138/11, paras. 81, 149, 164, 165, 167, 170, 173, 175, 177 and 178. 34 Report on Merits No. 138/11, paras. 42 and 69-73. 35 Report on Merits No. 138/11, para. 188. 36 Report on Merits No. 138/11, paras. 82 to 86. The private counsel of Messrs. García Cruz and Sánchez Silvestre alleged, among other reasons, that: the Public Defender’s Office made a “serious omission” “leaving [them] in a state of defenselessness;” “it is unacceptable that the elements proving the crime have been accepted;” “the Federal Law to Prevent and Punish Torture should be applied, which invalidates any statement made under torture […and] the Public Prosecutor should be urged to open the corresponding investigation;” and that this “infringed the principle of presumed innocence […] ‘by expecting those being prosecuted to demonstrate their innocence, and validates the proceedings conducted by the Public Prosecutor without these following the requirements established in the Federal Code of Criminal Procedures […].’” 37 Report on Merits No. 138/11, paras. 85 and 86. 38 Among other aspects, they claimed that the statements of the police officers who arrested them were not properly assessed, that the accused did not have an adequate defense and that they were forced to make statements to the Public Prosecutor through the use of physical and psychological violence.” Cf. Report on Merits No. 138/11, para. 89. 12