60 concluded that “it has not been proven in the court records, based on suitable evidence, that the actions ordered by the preliminary inquiry had been ‘prefabricated’ without the intervention of the accused; but instead that, in the case, what happened is that the measures taken as a result of the preliminary inquiry were inadequate.” In light of the foregoing, the condemnatory judgment against Mr. Montiel for the crime of planting of marijuana was revoked.229 148. In addition to the alleged irregularities related to the possession and carrying of firearms, narcotics and sodium rhodizonate test, the representatives requested to consider the statements rendered by the victims on May 4 and 6, 1999, to be considered as inexistent, claiming that Messrs. Cabrera and García never left the military battalion in which they were allegedly detained during those days. In this respect, their argument implies that, apart from other possible irregularities with respect to the firearms and the sodium rhodizonate, the flagrancy had allegedly been proved on the basis of these statements that were allegedly fraudulent declarations and allegedly, obtained under torture. For this reason, the representatives criticized the Recommendation made by the NCHR, asserting that such recommendation “affirmed, without analyzing the version of the facts regarding the reasons for the detention [of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel], narrated by the soldiers,” “disregard[ing] all the evidence [to the contrary], without providing an assessment or explanation, to take up again the version of the agents mentioned as responsible [in the instant case].” 149. In addition to the alleged torture, the Tribunal notes that the specific irregularities mentioned by the representatives in relation to said statements are the following: a) The alleged non-existence of an ex officio defense, that is, that the court-appointed counsels signed those declarations to warrant those irregular documents. This alleged irregularity shall be analyzed by the Tribunal in the chapter related to the right to defense (infra paras. 152 to 162); b) One of the attesting witnesses of the statement given on May 4, 1999 before the Prosecutor’s Office, who was recognized by Mr. Montiel as one of his alleged torturers and who, during the confrontation hearing conducted within the framework of the criminal proceedings, had with him a note which indicated the specific details of both the ministerial statement and the way in which to identify Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel.230 Regarding this irregularity, the domestic courts stated that the foregoing did not deny the truthfulness of the witness because Mr. remembering the exact location of the lot,” and that “none of the accused accompanied him;” the other one stated that “the accused remained together [and] that on the day of the plantation’s destruction, [Messrs. Montiel and Cabrera] were detained at the community of Pizotla” and that none accompanied them. Cf. Judgment issued on August 21, 2002 by the First Unitary Tribunal, supra note 148, folios 14580 to 14585. 229 Cf. Judgment of August 21, 2002 issued by the First Unitary Tribunal, supra note 148, folios 15317 and 15324. 230 The defense counsel of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel placed on record that “the declarant witness was reading a page from a notebook, in shorthand, which contained the answer of the day of the facts, from which he could answer the question […] that I just posed.”.” Due to this request of the defense, the Acting Secretary in Charge placed on record that “the witness […] present in here took out from his pants a piece of paper which reads: 7:30 a.m., May 4, 1999, at 7:30 p.m. in Arcelia […] Forbidden weapons; Crime: enervating drugs 6: Weapons diff. caliber Teodoro sign in one eye Rodolfo.”.” Cf. Proceeding before the Fifth District Court of January 21, 2000 by which two witnesses and a court-appointed counsel rendered their testimony, during the statements of May 4, 1999 (record of annexes to the answer to the application, volume XXIV, folios 10440 to 10441).