26. On this point, the State declares that Recommendation 8/2000 of the CNDH resulted in the opening of a preliminary investigation SC/304/2000/VII-1, in which the military prosecution decided not to lay criminal charges "because there were not sufficient elements for presuming that a crime had been committed by any member of the Mexican army".21 The State also argues that "in an effort to comply with the request of the petitioners themselves" the SEDENA decided to return the files of that preliminary investigation to the Inspection and General Control Unit of the Army and Air Force, which body decided to reopen the investigation of the facts. The State reports that, for that reason, preliminary investigation SC/304/2001/XVIII-1 was opened, and that that Unit is empowered to amend the decision not to take criminal action if it finds irregularities in the conduct of the previous investigation. 27. With respect to the petitioners' access to the military investigation, the State explains that the refusal of the PGJM to provide a copy of the order not to pursue criminal action is understandable, because it was under review, but that the SEDENA indicated that "the evidence found during the preliminary investigation is available to the petitioners, and to their legal representatives".22 The State continues: Mention should be made of the involvement of the Federal Judicial Power in this matter, in the sense that the Circuit Court based in Chilpancingo, Guerrero granted the petitioners the protection of Federal Justice so that the respective tribunal should "admit and assess" as proof the medical examination report issued by two forensic experts belonging to the international organization Physicians for Human Rights. Nevertheless, although the appeals court determined the validity of the evidence referred to, that body, pursuant to the judgment of amparo granted, did not consider it necessary to give it the value that the petitioners were asking. The foregoing can in no way be considered a violation of human rights: it is a question of the implicit power of a court to assess evidence produced by the parties. Nevertheless, it must be remembered that the petitioners brought a new motion of amparo against the ruling issued by the Tribunal, which is now pending decision. Finally, the Mexican government desires to establish clearly and precisely that, through both the administrative and the judicial routes (the Inspection and General Control Unit of the Army and Air Force and the appeals court), the respective petitions presented are pending decision, which means that domestic remedies have not been exhausted.23 28. The State concludes its second report by asking the IACHR "to find that domestic remedies have not been exhausted, and therefore to declare the present matter inadmissible as a case".24 IV. ANALYSIS A. Jurisdiction of the Commission ratione personae, ratione materiae, ratione temporis and ratione loci 29. In accordance with the terms of Article 44 of the American Convention, the petitioners have standing to present a claim before the Commission. The petition under study identifies as the alleged victims individuals with respect to whom the Mexican State was committed to respect and guarantee the rights protected in the American Convention. With respect to the State, the Commission notes that Mexico has been a party to the American Convention since March 24, 1981, at which time it deposited its instrument of ratification, and it has been a 21 22 23 24 Idem. Idem, page 2. Idem, pages 2 and 3. Idem, page 3. 6