b) Furthermore, the State noted that, on November 7, 2009, FEPAONGDDH reported that the Prosecutor of the Public Prosecutions Office attached to the First Court of Criminal Matters requested that the Judge on Criminal Matters Specialized in Precautionary Measures issue “a search warrant to be executed in various homes in the town of Comitán de Domínguez, Chiapas, including one located at 5ª Avenida oriente Sur 199 ciento noventa y nueve, entre 15 quince y 16 dieciséis calle oriente[, the home of Margarita Martínez Martínez], in order to execute the arrest warrant against Víctor de Jesús Pinto Hernández.” Therefore, “it is evident that the public officials arrived at the home of Mr. and Mrs. Adolfo Guzmán Ordaz and Margarita […] Martínez Martínez, with an authorized search warrant.” c) As a result of the complaint filed by those affected, a “Preliminary Investigation number 0004/FEPONGDDH-M1/2009 was opened,” which has initiated several inquiries to determine those responsible for the events that took place. Stemming from said investigation carried out on November 22, 2010, “a criminal complaint was filed before the Second Court of Criminal matters of the Judicial District of Tuxtla Gutiérrez, Chiapas.” However, the competent judicial body “denied the request to issue an arrest warrant,” for which reason “the Prosecutor of the Public Prosecutions Office attached to the court filed an appeal, sending the evidence to the Superior Court of Justice of the State.” Consequently, on February 14, 2011, the Superior Court of the State “by a majority vote, decided to declare the lack of jurisdiction of the Judge of the Second Court on Criminal Matters of the Judicial District of Tuxtla Gutiérrez, Chiapas.” On February 23, 2011, it ordered the arrest of several individuals as “possible perpetrators of the crime of abuse of authority [,] and also for carrying out of an unlawful raid,” and a claim was filed against nine possible perpetrators. On March 10, 2011, the Judge hearing the matter issued a formal order of imprisonment against one of the individuals. d) regarding the alleged events of November 25, 2009, (supra Having Seen para. 2(e)), the State argued that it did not learn about the incident until December 7, 2009, when Mr. Adolfo Guzmán Ordaz filed a brief denouncing the matter. As a result, the Prosecutions Office drafted “an official letter number FEPONGDDH/MP/121/2009,” in which it again asked the petitioners to consider the “proposal for precautionary measures.” This proposal was declined by Mr. Guzmán Ordaz in a brief dated December 8, 2009; e) regarding the alleged events of December 14, 2009 (supra Having Seen para. 2(f)), the State noted that, by way of official letter number FEPONGDDH/133/2009 dated December 18, 2009, FEPONGDDH “requested that the [first] superintendent Mr.. Moisés Grajales Monterrosa, guarantee [the petitioners] the precautionary and security measures necessary to protect their lives, in prior consultation with them”; f) regarding the events of December 25, 2009, (supra Having Seen para. 2(g)), the State reported that FEAPONGDHH drafted the official letters “FEPONGDDHM/P/139/2009 and FEPONGDDH/MP/142/2009, dated December 25 and 26, 2009, respectively, to the first Superintendent Mr. Moisés Grajales Monterrosa, requesting the adoption of the necessary precautionary measures.” g) regarding the events of January 6, (supra Having Seen para. 2(h)) and January 19, 2010 (supra Having Seen para. 2(i)), the State noted that the FEPOANGDHH did not learn of these until January 13 and February 9, 2010, respectively. It reported that FEPAONGDDH “requested experts on dactyloscopy to 6