21 D. Findings regarding evidence based on supervening facts 62. On December 4, 2009, the representatives forwarded as evidence based on supervening facts “recent information on the criminal investigation underway into the facts of the case.” They indicated that on October 30, 2009, the Office of the Attorney General for Justice of the state de Guerrero (hereinafter also “Guerrero Attorney General’s Office) notified the representatives that it had waived jurisdiction in favor of the Office of the Attorney General for Military Justice (hereinafter also “Military Attorney General’s Office”), “because those probably responsible for the facts […] are members of the Mexican Army.”44 63. In its response to the application, the State confirmed the rejection of jurisdiction in favor of the Military Public Prosecutor’s Office, outlined the normative grounds for this action, and indicated that it was in keeping with the laws in force. 64. For its part, the Inter-American Commission referred back to its observations in its Report on Merits and in the application concerning the military criminal justice system and underscored that “the intervention of the military criminal justice system in the investigation of a complaint of rape [allegedly] perpetrated against a civilian” cannot be justified. 65. The Court considers that this fact, effectively, forms part of the purpose of this case and, consequently, admits the copy of note No. 345/2009 of October 29, 2009, relating to Preliminary Investigation FEIDS VI/003/2009, provided by the representatives, under the terms of Article 46(3) of the Rules of Procedure, and will consider the information contained therein, to the extent pertinent. 66. Subsequently, on March 23, 2010, the representatives forwarded information and documents as evidence of alleged supervening facts related to alleged acts of harassment and threats against witness Eugenio Manuel and one of the organizations that represent Mrs. Fernández Ortega.45 In their opinion, these acts would “clearly constitute additional obstacles to the search for justice” in the present case. 67. The Commission indicated that “the recent threats are an example of the vulnerability of the beneficiaries of the provisional measures connected to this case […]; not only do they continue to be permanently at risk, but this state of affairs tends to worsen when one of the cases that originated the situation of risk, which the measures of protection are intended to counter, is imminent.” 68. The State indicated that “it is evident that these facts bear no relationship to the litis of the matter and do not contribute any elements that [the Court] can take into consideration to help it decide” the case. Furthermore, it indicated that the representatives “have made unsubstantiated assumptions to try to connect the [alleged] rape of Mrs. Fernández Ortega with the procedure relating to provisional measures, initiated owing to the alleged threats against OPIM and the members of 44 Cf. Brief of the representatives of December 4, 2009, and copy of the notification of Order No. 345/2009 of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Common Jurisdiction, attached to the Special Prosecutor’s Office for Sexual and Domestic Violence of October 29, 2009 (case file on the merits, tome II, folio 450 and ff.). 45 Cf. Brief of March 23, 2010, and copy of the note that was supposedly found in the OPIM office in Ayutla de los Libres on March 6, 2010 (case file on the merits, tome III, folio 809) and copy of the complaint filed on March 11, 2010, by Mrs. Eugenio Manuel before the Public Prosecutor adjoined to the Commission for the Defense of Human Rights of the state of Guerrero, registered under Preliminary Investigation GRO/SC/021/2010 (case file on the merits, tome III, folios 811 to 819).