30 National Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “NCHR”). On July 14, 2000, the NCHR determined that the “military personnel violated the Freedom from Ex Post Facto Laws principle and right to liberty of Messrs. Rodolfo Montiel and Teodoro Cabrera García, […] [and due to] the continued silence [of the PGJM],92 it presumed that the alleged allegations of torture were true, in keeping with articles 3893 and 7094 of the NCHR’s Law,95 hence it recommended that “the Inspection and Comptrollership Unit of the Mexican Army and Air Force begin an administrative investigation into the members of the Mexican Army who authorized, supervised, implemented, and executed the operation from May 1 to May 4, 1999.”96 It also recommended the Attorney General’s Office of the Republic to begin a preliminary investigation into the members of the Mexican Army who authorized, supervised, implemented, and executed the operation. Likewise, it urged the Attorney General of Military Justice to hand down the measures necessary to determine and issue, as soon as possible, the corresponding judgment within the preliminary investigation on the alleged acts of torture.97 76. Based on the NCHR’s recommendations, on September 29, 2000 the PGJM began a new Preliminary Inquiry into the crimes of torture, prolonged detention, among others. On November 3, 2001, the Attorney General’s Office for Military Justice decided to refer the present inquiry to the Prosecutor General for Military Justice, with a reasoned report “proposing that no criminal action be brought and that the inquiry be definitively closed, with the exceptions that the law provides,” on the grounds that the investigation did not determine acts of torture committed against Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel.98 2. Alleged violation of the right to personal security 77. The representatives claimed “that the right to personal security, which is closely related to personal liberty, has a specific content” related to “creating a favorable and adequate environment for the peaceful coexistence of people.” According to the representatives, “[w]hile subsections 2 to 7 of the aforementioned article 7 constitu[te] specific guarantees that establish guidelines regarding how an individual can be validly deprived of liberty, the right to security protec[ts] the conditions under which physical liberty is ensured, or is free of threats.” In this respect, the representatives indicated that “the role played by the Army in tasks related to public security […] fostered an environment contrary to an effective protection of human rights.” The representatives therefore argued that “the way in 92 Cf. CNDH. Recommendation N° 8/2000 of July 14, 2000, supra note 89, folios 8434 to 8461. 93 Article 38.- The report to be presented by the authorities in question, as the responsible parties against which a complaint or claim may be brought, is to include background information on the matter, the grounds and motives for the actions or omissions being challenged, if such grounds or motives exist, and the information deemed necessary to properly document the matter. If the report or the supporting documentation is either not presented or is delayed without cause, the parties to blame shall be held accountable and the facts of the complaint shall be deemed to be true, unless proven otherwise. 94 Article 70.- The public authorities and public servants shall be criminally and administratively liable for the acts or omissions they incur during and in connection with the processing of complaints with the National Human Rights Commission, in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Constitution and the law. 95 Cf. CNDH. Recommendation N° 8/2000 of July 14, 2000, supra note 89, folio 8458. 96 Cf. CNDH. Recommendation N° 8/2000 of July 14, 2000, supra note 89, folio 8459. 97 Cf. CNDH. Recommendation N° 8/2000 of July 14, 2000, supra note 89, folio 8459. 98 Cf. Order issued on November 3, 2001 by the First Investigating Agent of the Office of the Public Prosecutor for Military Justice for the Area of Preliminary Inquiries of the Attorney General’s Office for Military Justice (record of annexes to the application, volume XIX, annex 11, folios 8181 to 8367).