modification (premeditation) to the detriment of María de los Ángeles Tamés Pérez and bribery to the detriment of the Public Administration. In said judgment, they were sentenced to 35 years imprisonment and the ruling also established that the time the defendants had spent in arraigo and preventive detention (17 years) during the proceedings should be discounted from their sentence. 88 On May 13, 2022, Daniel García and Reyes Alpízar appealed against the conviction. 80. In the course of the proceedings, the alleged victims filed several motions related to the production of evidence, 89 requests for closure of the investigation, 90 requests for transfer to a prison closer to the place of the trial, 91 motions requesting the exclusion of evidence that had been obtained unlawfully, 92 and motions for review of the detention. 93 81. On November 16, 2011, Daniel García Rodríguez and Reyes Alpízar asked to be tried through the New Criminal Justice System. The defendants also denounced the continuation of their pretrial detention. On November 24, 2011, the Fifth Criminal Judge indicated that the crime of which they were accused “was and continues to be serious,” since the law in force at the time of its commission “legally precludes the granting of provisional release on bail.” 94 82. Subsequently, the defendants filed several amparos and requested the intervention of the President and the Justices of the Supreme Court, 95 but all their efforts were unsuccessful. 96 83. On May 30, 2016, Daniel García and Reyes Alpízar requested the modification of their pretrial detention through the retroactive application of the rules of the Accusatorial Criminal System that had entered into force in 2008. 97 On May 31, 2017, this request was rejected by the First Instance 88 Cf. Judicial branch of the state of Mexico. Criminal Court of the Judicial District of Tlalnepantla. Judgment of May 12, 2022, Tlalnepantla de Baz, state of Mexico (evidence file, folios 70391 to 71350). 89 On March 9, 2004, an order was issued in which it was determined that the Public Prosecutor's Office no longer had the right to continue presenting evidence because the one-year term to try the defendant Reyes Alpízar Ortiz had expired. An indirect amparo was filed against this decision, which was granted on October 18, 2006, because said decision lacked grounds and justification, and a new study was ordered. On November 17, 2006, the First Collegiate Criminal Court of Tlalnepantla issued a replacement ruling, maintaining the prison sentence for aggravated homicide and bribery - which, being punishable by imprisonment warranted pretrial detention – and granting release for organized crime. Cf. First Criminal Collegiate Court of Tlalnepantla, Superior Court of Justice of the state of Mexico. Ruling on Appeal of Replacement. Tlalnepantla de Baz, State of Mexico, November 17, 2006 (evidence file, folios 1502 to 1551). 90 Cf. Evidence hearing, Tlalnepantla, state of Mexico, June 19, 2008 (evidence file, folios 1778 to 1782). 91 Cf. Order. Sixth District Judge of the state of Mexico. June 12, 2012 (evidence file, folios 2232 to 2235). Cf. Information contained in: Judgment of appeal of March 28, 2016 issued by the First Criminal Collegiate Court of Tlalnepantla of the Superior Court of the State of Mexico, 460/2015 (evidence file, folios 2699 to 2741). 92 93 After an appeal for review against the arrest of Daniel García Rodríguez was accepted, on March 30, 2007, a review of the formal arrest warrant was ordered. This was amended on May 23, 2007, ordering his release “for lack of evidence to prosecute with the reservations of the law", with respect to the crimes of extortion, fraud and organized crime.” However, for the crime of aggravated homicide, “which, being punishable by imprisonment warrants the pretrial detention of the accused,” the detention was upheld. Cf. Second Criminal Collegiate Court of Tlalnepantla, Superior Court of Justice of the state of Mexico. Ruling on indirect amparo proceeding 1192/2005-E. Tlalnepantla de Baz, state of Mexico, May 23, 2007 (evidence file, folios 710 to 825). 94 Cf. Ruling on motion. Tlalnepantla, state of Mexico, November 24, 2011 (evidence file, folios 2762 to 2768). 95 Cf. Letter from Daniel García and Reyes Alpízar addressed to Justice Juan N. Silva Meza, President of the Supreme Court of Justice, January 25, 2012 (evidence file, folios 2849 to 2851); Letter from Daniel García and Reyes Alpízar addressed to Justice Arturo Zaldívar Lelo de Larrea, Supreme Court of Justice. January 25, 2012, (evidence file 2855 to 2857),95 and letter from Daniel García and Reyes Alpízar, requesting an appeal for review before the Supreme Court of Justice. Mexico, April 15, 2012 (evidence file, folios 2923 to 2972. 96 Cf. Eighth District Court of the state of Mexico. Ruling on amparo proceeding 1551/2011-E. Letter from the secretary of Supreme Court Justice Olga Sánchez. Mexico, DF, February 27, 2012 (evidence file, folios 2899 to 2922). 97 Cf. Information contained in the Judgment of January 18, 2018, Second Collegiate Court on Criminal Matters of the Second circuit, Appeal for Review 312/2017 (evidence file, folios 2987 to 3018). -23-