90 transferred to the preliminary investigation into the murders.392 Nevertheless, the Tribunal has not received any evidence that would allow it to determine whether all the evidence mentioned by the State was transferred. Moreover, once again, the representatives failed to argue how that evidence was relevant. To the contrary, they maintained that this line of investigation was “implausible.” Bearing this in mind, the Court declares that the representatives did not provide any elements that would allow it to conclude that the supposed negligence in transferring evidence constitutes – or contributes to – a human rights violation. 359. Regarding the absence of a connection between the federal investigation and the investigation in Chihuahua, the case file before the Tribunal does not contain sufficient evidence as regards whether there was an exchange of information between the local and federal Offices of the Attorney General in relation to the murders of the Mss. Herrera, González and Ramos. Furthermore, the investigation before the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic began before the proceedings against Mr. García had ended. There is no explanation of why this other investigation, which probably included information concerning Mr. García, was not considered during the proceedings in Chihuahua.393 In the absence of arguments regarding the evidence, the Court is unable to reach a conclusion on the impact of the facts described on the ineffectiveness of the investigation, based merely on a list of those facts. (b) Alleged irregularities based on the failure of the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic to have the case files transferred 360. The representatives alleged that “the investigators [should have reached] the conclusion, at least as a hypothesis for investigation, that they were in the presence of an organized criminal group,” so that, “from the moment the bodies were discovered, the jurisdiction for the investigation and prosecution of the crimes should have been attributed to the police, prosecution and judicial authorities of the federal jurisdiction.” Failure to do this “prevented the application of the specific legislation and the use of the legal and material investigation mechanisms established for organized crime, which are not applicable to ordinary crime.” 361. The witness Delgadillo Pérez indicated that “[t]he State has not provided an explanation of why the Federation did not have the investigation into the murders of the eight women transferred to its jurisdiction if, as it has been proved, the local Office of the Attorney General did not have the professional, scientific or technical capacity to conduct it.”394 Expert witness Castresana Fernández indicated that, based on the way the murders were committed and the bodies abandoned, with imminent risk for those responsible that they would be discovered, it can be surmised that the murders were perpetrated by organized crime and it can be inferred that the perpetrators were public officials, or private individuals who enjoyed the latter’s protection. Based on this 392 Cf. attestations of August 16, 2007, by which the official of the Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Joint Agency to Investigate the Murders in Ciudad Juárez traced different measures (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XXXVII, attachment 50, docket III, volume II, folios 10569, 10570, 13577, 13578, 13641 and 13642). 393 Even though the Special Prosecutor’s Office indicated that it had not been proved that “federal laws have been violated, so that it would justify the transfer mechanism” in any of the 19 investigations, the office indicated that attachment B of the report “describes the hypotheses for the investigations, and also the measures that were proposed for each of the 19 preliminary [murder] investigations” of the 22 referred to in said report. Although this indicates an exchange of information, the Court observes that there is no evidence that similar measures were recommended in the cases of the young women, Herrera, González and Ramos (third report of the Special Prosecutor’s Office, supra note 387, folio 3363). 394 Testimony of witness Delgadillo Pérez, supra note 187, folio 3513.