74 carried out during the preliminary investigation in criminal proceedings,260 in order to guarantee the effectiveness of the administration of justice, in no case can the reservation be invoked to prevent the victim from accessing the dossier of a criminal process. The State’s power to avoid the spreading of the content of the proceedings, if this were the case, shall be guaranteed adopting the necessary measures compatible with the exercise of the victims’ procedural rights. 253. In that sense, on one hand, it is evident for this Tribunal that upon denying Mrs. Tita Radilla-Pacheco, in her condition of injured party, access to the dossier of criminal case 46/2005 processed before the Second District Court in the State of Guerrero, the State failed to comply with its obligation to respect her right to intervene in the process. 254. Regarding the issuance of copies of the case file of the preliminary inquiry carried out by the Attorney General of the Republic in this case, the Court warns that the requests made in this sense have been declared inadmissible by that institution, based on Article 16, second paragraph, of the Federal Code of Criminal Proceedings.261 255. Regarding this matter, the State indicated that “[i]t has guaranteed full access of the collaborator Tita Radilla Martínez, either personally or through her legal representatives, to the case file that is currently included as the investigation of the facts.” However, in the processing before this Tribunal, it has repeated the legal impossibility that falls upon the Public Prosecutors’ Office to issue copies of ongoing preliminary inquiries (supra para. 88), reason for which there is no controversy regarding these facts. 256. The Court considers that, in cases such as the present, the denial to issue copies of the investigation to the victims constitutes a disproportionate burden in their detriment, not compatible with their right to participate in the preliminary inquiry. In the case before us, this was translated into a violation of Mrs. Tita Radilla Martinez’s right to fully participate in the investigation. In this sense, the States shall have mechanisms that are less damaging to the right to a fair trial while protecting the diffusion of the content of the ongoing investigation and the integrity of the case files. 257. In any case, the Tribunal points out that the Federal Law on Transparency and Access to Public Governmental Information in force in Mexico, in its Article 14, fraction III, effectively states that “preliminary inquiries” will be considered reserved information.” 262 However, in that same provision, said Law also stats that “[t]he nature of the reservation 260 Cf. Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206, paras. 54 and 55. 261 Cf. Agreement issued by the Attorney General of the Republic in attention to the petition made by Mrs. Tita Radilla Martínez requesting a single copy of preliminary inquiry number PGR/FEMOSPP/033/2002 (dossier of appendixes to the brief of pleadings and motions, appendix D(30), folio 1954). The Court warns that Article 16, second paragraph, of the Federal Court of Criminal Proceedings states that “Only the defendant, his defense counsel and the victim or injured party and/or his legal representative, if any, may have access to the actions of a preliminary inquiry. Any public employee that violates the reservation of the information of the preliminary inquiry or provides a copy of the documents included in it, will be subject to the corresponding proceeding to determine their administrative or criminal responsibility.” Cf. (dossier of appendixes to the respondent’s plea, appendix III(4), page 5). 262 Published in the Official Gazette of the Federation on June 11, 2002, Text in Force (http://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/244.pdf). In its Article 13, fraction V, it states that “Reserved information will be understood as the one whose diffusion may: […] Cause a serious damage to the activities of verification of compliance with the laws, prevention or prosecution of crimes, the serving of justice, the collection of contributions, immigration control operations, procedural strategies in legal or administrative proceedings as long as the resolutions do not become enforceable.”