26 Tribunal states that some of the documents presented by the representatives are not linked to the information requested by the judges.57 Likewise, one of the documents does not indicate the name of the author or the sources of information contained therein, thus the Tribunal cannot assess it correctly.58 Therefore, in application of Article 47(1) of the Rules of Procedure, only the documents related with the information required by the judges are included into the body of evidence of the present case.59 Their content will be assessed in the measure in which it is useful for the elucidation of the questions made during the mentioned public hearing. 88. On the other hand, the Tribunal points out that the President requested that the State forward a copy of Preliminary Inquiry SIEDF/CGI/454/07, regarding the alleged forced disappearance of Mr. Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco, for its inclusion in the body of evidence of the present case (supra para. 10). However, the State did not present said copy. Int his regard, the State mentioned that “if the […] Court were to forward the mentioned preliminary inquiry to the Inter-American Commission […] and to the petitioners, the correct development of the obtainment of justice enshrined in Articles 21 and 102 of the Political Constitution of the United States of Mexico, pursuant to which the prosecution and research of the crimes committed within its territory is the exclusive power of the State of Mexico, would be affected.” Additionally, the State mentioned that “[t]he evidentiary elements presented up to this moment by the parties in controversy are evidently sufficient for the resolution of the case.” Therefore, it requested that the Tribunal “[p]roceed to the resolution of the case with the ample evidentiary elements that have been filed throughout the processing of the case.” 89. As it has done on previous occasions,60 the Court considers it appropriate to point out that the reservation of information from people outside the process in the preparation stage of criminal investigations is established in different domestic legislations. In this case, the accused State has mentioned the aforementioned as grounds to not send to the Court the documents requested with regard to the domestic criminal proceedings referring to the alleged forced disappearance of Mr. Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco. The restriction mentioned could result justifiable in the domestic proceedings, since the diffusion of certain contents during a preliminary stage of the investigations could obstruct them or cause damages to the people. However, for the effects of the international jurisdiction of this Tribunal, it is the State who has control of the means for the clarification of the facts occurred within its territory and, therefore, its defense cannot fall upon the impossibility of the defendant to 57 Those documents are: appendixes A.1. Legislative Initiatives. Related to the Military Jurisdiction; appendixes A.2. Legislative Initiatives. Related to National Security; appendixes B. Doctrine; appendixes C: Reports; appendixes D: Newspaper articles, and Appendix E.2: Other documents. Recommendations issued by the CNDH to Sedena “in Calderón’s six-year period” (dossier of appendixes to the final arguments of the representatives, folios 2763 through 3098 and 3112 through 3115). 58 Said document corresponds to appendix E.4: Summaries of actual cases of violations by soldiers against civilians (dossier of appendixes to the final arguments of the representatives, folios 3119 through 3137). 59 Those documents correspond to: appendix E.1: Other documents. Requests for information on Military justice - folios 700175808, 700176008, 700176108, 700176308, 700176408, 700176508, 700176608, 700176808, 700176908, 700177008, 700177108, and, 700177308-; appendix E.3: Order of January 12, 2009, upon request of information recorded under folio 700002709, through the System of Federal Governmental Public Information, National Defense Secretariat. Laisson Unit, Access to Information. Official Letter No. AI/0117 (dossier of appendixes to the final arguments of the representatives, folios 3100 through 3111 and 3116 through 3118). 60 Cf. Case of Ríos et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 194, para. 98 and Case of González et al. v. Mexico. Request of Expansion of the Alleged Victims and Refusal to Forward Documentary Evidence. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 19, 2009, considering clause number fifty-nine.