investigation of May 29, 2002 were received from the assistant director of pretrial investigations for Indigenous Justice; c) various communications were sent to the Judge of Sabanilla, Chiapas, advising him to notify Sonia López Juárez to appear at the Ministerio Público to provide more information concerning the possible whereabouts of her husband, but Mrs. López Juárez did not come forward. 35 30. The State went on to argue that during the pretrial investigation, “there was insufficient evidence gathered to determine the probable responsibility of any agent in the alleged disappearance of Mr. González Méndez. Nor was there enough information to support the participation of a paramilitary group in the matter denounced.” 36 The State contended that the alleged disappearance of Antonio González Méndez has to do with “[...] acts carried out by individuals and not by officials of the State of Chiapas.” 37 31. The State argued that during the pretrial investigation, various statements were given that “indicated that the minor Juan Regino López Leoporto was responsible for the disappearance of Antonio González Méndez,” 38 and so the State opened an investigation against Juan Regino López Leoporto, who at the time of the incident was a minor. The investigating agent forwarded the case records to the Council for Protection of Minors [Consejo Tutelar para Menores] in Tuxtla Gutiérrez, Chiapas, since Mexican legislation stipulated that “when a minor is accused of having committed a criminal act, he shall be assured just and humane treatment.” 39 The State went on to assert that under Mexican legislation, “persons less than 18 years of age are considered as unindictable; [thus, the Ministerio Público] shall refrain from opening an investigation against them and its intervention shall be limited to making them immediately available to the acting representative of the unit in charge of prevention and treatment of minors.” 40 In this regard, the State reported that Juan Regino López Leoporto entered the protective juvenile facility on February 6, 1999, for the probable disappearance of the alleged victim, and was released on March 25, 1999. 32. As for the complaint filed with the CNDH, the State argued that said institution found “that there was no human rights violation of legal certainty on the part of Mexican government officials, through participation in the disappearance of Antonio González Méndez.” 41 33. As for the argument by the petitioners to the effect that the State officials did not channel the investigation to the “Justicia y Paz” organization, 42the State contended that “in the various steps taken during pretrial Investigation AL41/SJI/030/99, and in all the information gathered during that proceeding, there was no indication whatsoever that would imply the participation of that organization, or that the organization was responsible for the disappearance of Antonio González Méndez.” 43 The State went on to say that in the statement that Mrs. Sonia López deposed at the Ministerio Público, “there was no reference to the participation of any civilian armed group in the disappearance of Antonio González Méndez; on the contrary, she specifically accused only the minor Juan Regino López Leoporto.” 44 The 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Observations submitted by the State Observations submitted by the State Observations submitted by the State Observations submitted by the State Observations submitted by the State Observations submitted by the State Observations submitted by the State Refer to paragraph 20 of this report. Observations submitted by the State Observations submitted by the State on on on on on on on March 31, 2003, p. 1. March 31, 2003, p. 2. March 31, 2003, p. 3. April 14, 2005, p. 2. April 14, 2005, p. 2. April 14, 2005, p. 3. April 14, 2005, p. 5. on April 14, 2005, p. 4. on April 14, 2005, p. 4. 8