93 allocated to each official of the Public Prosecutor’s Office”401 and “there are no mechanisms for holding meetings to discuss investigation strategies and to determine the facts that need to be investigated, where the head of the prosecutor’s office, the team of investigators, the judicial police and experts can get a global vision of what occurred in each crime.”402 4.2.2.5. Alleged failure to punish irregularities in this case public officials implicated in 371. The representatives alleged that some of the officials who were implicated in irregularities, omissions and negligence in this case continue working in the Office of the Attorney General for the state of Chihuahua; others only received administrative sanctions of a “very limited scope,” and the rest were neither investigated nor sanctioned. 372. The State indicated that, starting in October 2004, it examined the case files of the murders of 255 women in Ciudad Juárez, in order to review the actions of public officials in the investigation procedures. It alleged that it had filed 20 actions against public officials before the criminal courts, and 62 administrative proceedings before the government’s internal control body (Secretariat of the Office of the Comptroller of the state of Chihuahua). As a result of these administrative proceedings, 15 officials were barred from holding office, five dismissed, three suspended and two received a warning. Currently, 12 administrative proceedings are ongoing. 373. In other cases, the Tribunal has referred to the fact that, in some countries, judicial disciplinary bodies accord considerable symbolic value to the message of censure transmitted by this type of sanction of public officials and members of the armed forces.403 Additionally, the Court emphasizes the importance of disciplinary procedures in order to control the actions of said public officials, particularly when the human rights violations conform to generalized and systematic patterns. 374. Regarding the relationship of disciplinary actions with the right of access to justice, the Tribunal has indicated that disciplinary proceedings should determine the circumstances in which the violation of the functional obligation was committed that led to the breach of international human rights law.404 375. In this case, the final report of the Office of the Special Prosecutor for the Investigation of the Murders of Women in the Municipality of Juárez included a list of the public officials who intervened in 139 judicial proceedings related to said homicides, as well the number of those who had incurred possible criminal or administrative responsibility in each case. However, this list does not include the three murders in the instant case.405 In addition, the State presented a report on the officials who were sanctioned, indicating the name of the official and the case file in which he or she is attributed possible responsibility, as well as the procedural stage of the case. Nevertheless, the Court also observes that this second list does not mention officials who have been investigated for the irregularities committed in the investigation into 401 Cf. testimony of witness Delgadillo Pérez, supra note 187, folio 3481. 402 Cf. testimony of witness Delgadillo Pérez, supra note 187, folio 3481. 403 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia, supra note 252, para. 215. 404 Cf. Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 397, para. 207. 405 Cf. Office of the Special Prosecutor for the Investigation of Crimes related to the Murders of Women in Ciudad Juárez, Informe Final, supra note 87, folios 14881 to 14892.