59 use of the Army, Navy and Air Force with respect to the firearms that they did recognize having carried in their statement from May 6, 1999.222 146. In relation to the sodium rhodizonate test that was positive on the victims’ hands,223 the First Unitary Tribunal indicated that this test was performed in accordance with legal requirements and that it had not been “invalidated.”224 Regarding the fact that “the [defendants] were lying in the river’s waters,” the trial court indicated that “only they stated this, but there is no data to verify this fact, since while the soldiers indicate that they were lying down […], in no way they are indicating that they had been in contact with the water at said river during that time.”225 Subsequently, the same court reiterated that only the victims mentioned that they had been in contact with the river’s water while they were detained that day.226 147. On the other hand, in relation with the crime of possession and planting of narcotics, the First Unitary Tribunal verified several irregularities related to the existence and destruction of the marijuana plantation. Said court indicated that “no suitable evidence proving its material and juridical existence was provided, and instead the confession given the accused […] was invalidated,227 together with the remaining evidence produced in the natural proceeding.”228 Finally, the tribunal 222 Cf. Judgment of August 21, 2002 issued by the First Collegiate Tribunal, supra note 148, folios 15321 and 15324. 223 On May 4, 1999, an expert witness conducted a sodium rhodizonate tests on the samples taken from both hands of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel. Said expert opinion established that: “[a]ccording to the results obtained from the samples analyzed of the detainees [...], it is established that [Mr. Cabrera Garcia] HAD lead and barium residue on both of his hands of the kind left from discharging a firearm. It was established that [Mr. Montiel Flores] only had the residue before mentioned on his right hand, of the kind left from discharging a firearm; and the test is negative regarding his left hand.”.” Cf. Official letter N° 067/99 of May 4, 1999, by which the chemical expert witness Rey Yañez Sanchez rendered an expert opinion before the Agent of the Public Prosecutor's Office, Judicial Department of Cuautemoc, Arcelia, Guerrero (record of annexes to the answer to the application, volume XXIII, folio 9729). 224 Cf. Judgment of October 26, 2000 issued by the First Unitary Tribunal, supra note 77, folio 12015. 225 Cf. Judgment of October 26, 2000 issued by the First Unitary Tribunal, supra note 77, folio 12137. 226 Cf. Judgment of July 16, 2001 issued by the First Unitary Tribunal, supra note 82, folio 13656. 227 According to this statement before the Public Prosecutor’s Office on May 6, 1999, Mr. Montiel Flores had claimed that “[he] plant[ed] marijuana because the Government did not help [them] with productive projects.” That his marijuana plantation was “at most one fourth of a [h]ectare[,] that [he] plant[ed] out of a need to sell it” and that “the marijuana seeds they found were owned by another person, since [he] only plant[ed] as far as the seeds lasted, which were plant[ed] on January twentysecond, and which he took care of it on his own.”.” Cf. Statement of Mr. Montiel Flores of May 6, 1999, supra note 132, folios 9778 to 9779. 228 The First Unitary Tribunal asserted that “none of the authorities charged with investigating the crimes, in conformity with article 21 of the Magna Carta, exercised diligence of inspection at the place where the marijuana plants were found;” there is an “evident and palpable contradiction” as the statements given by the accused indicate that RODOLFO MONTIEL FLORES “is the one who planted the marijuana”, and “in the accusation, the military personnel asserted that the plantation was owned by ‘TEODORO CABRERA GARCIA’,” that is “the mentioned military personnel have introduced inconsistent and contradictory issues in their accusation,” “as the alleged marijuana plantation was located ‘three hours on foot’ [...] but this circumstance cannot be clarified with the evidence furnished in the court records.” The “act of destruction [of the marijuana plantation] does not contain the date in which it was created […] nor does it include a description of the precise location” where this destruction took place and “it does not refer to the procedure nor the way in which” they measured the plantation and its density. Also, the photographs of the plantation “are not suitable to prove [its] destruction;” regarding the attestation given by the Agent of the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office of Coyuca de Catalan, Guerrero, as well as by the Secretary of Agreements of the Criminal Court of First Instance of the Judicial District of Mina, it was concluded that the fact of “having seen fifteen plants with the characteristics of marijuana [...], only helps to show that this plant was seen, […] but in no way demonstrates the existence of the marijuana plantation in question;” regarding the inconsistencies in the assertions made by the military personnel, it indicated that one of them “expressed […] not