- 100 - in February 2007, several of the women presented a brief to the FEVIM asking it: (i) to file the inquiry before the judicial authority on the basis of the crime of torture, and (ii) to endorse the results of the examinations performed in application of the Istanbul Protocol by the CNDH and the CCTI.375 Regarding the first point, according to information provided by the State, on March 9, 2007, the FEVIM decided that, “for the moment, it is not possible to agree to your petition because the requirements for exercising the authority to transfer jurisdiction have not been met.” On the second point, the State advised that “[t]he agreement to this request could not be found in the records of the inquiry; only a note of May 4, 2007, indicating that the brief had been received and added to the preliminary inquiry.” 280. In addition, in light of the FEVIM request that the appraisals corresponding to the Istanbul Protocol be re-applied, this time by PGR personnel, on February 27, 2007, several of the women presented a letter refusing this, considering that it revictimized them, 376 while Bárbara Italia Méndez Moreno and Ana María Velasco Rodríguez accepted to allow the PGR to apply the Istanbul Protocol directly.377 On May 16 and 17, 2007, the PGR applied the Protocol to Bárbara Italia Méndez Moreno and Ana María Velasco Rodríguez.378 On August 13, 2007, on discovering that the results had not been added to the case file, the women and the Center Prodh urged the FEVIM to incorporate them.379 The two appraisals were added to the case file in February 2008.380 281. In this regard, the Court has said that, in the investigation of cases of torture, the Istanbul Protocol indicates that “[t]he timeliness of such medical examination is particularly important,” and that “[a] medical examination should be undertaken regardless of the length of time since the torture.”381 However, the Protocol notes that “[d]espite all precautions, physical and psychoarbitrarily, with excessive use of force; a situation confirmed by the CNDH; (iii) the Honor and Justice Commission of the Ministry of Public Security had imposed administrative sanctions on at least three federal agents for the offense of omission during the operation; (iv) a connection existed between the offenses that fell within the federal sphere and those that fell within the local jurisdiction; (v) what happened to the women should be classified as torture, and (vi) the PGJEM did not meet the requirement of impartiality. Cf. Brief presented by several of the women before the FEVIM of November 21, 2006 (evidence file, folios 8540 to 8550), and brief presented to the FEVIM by the Center Prodh dated January 12, 2007 (evidence file, folios 8552 to 8556). 375 Cf. Brief presented to the FEVIM by several of the women dated February 21, 2007 (evidence file, folios 8558 and 8559). Cf. Letter of Mariana Selvas Gómez, Suhelen Gabriela Cuevas Jaramillo, María Patricia Romero Hernández, Georgina Edith Rosales Gutiérrez and Norma Aidé Jiménez Osorio to the FEVIM dated February 27, 2007 (evidence file, folios 23399 and 23400). 376 Requests for appraisals sent to the FEVIM by Bárbara Italia Méndez Moreno and Ana María Velasco Rodríguez on January 15, 2007 (evidence file, folios 24348 and 24349). See also, the State’s brief before the Commission of October 15, 2012 (evidence file, folio 14323), and letter sent to the FEVIM by Mariana Selvas Gómez, Suhelen Gabriela Cuevas Jaramillo, María Patricia Romero Hernández, Georgina Edith Rosales Gutiérrez and Norma Aidé Jiménez Osorio on February 27, 2007 (evidence file, folios 23399 and 23400). 377 This led to the conclusion that the complainants displayed the psychological effects of ill-treatment and that it was medically impossible to confirm the physical effects. Regarding Ana María Velasco Rodríguez, the medical report indicated that “acute and chronic psychological effects exist that […] are the result of physical ill-treatment and/or torture.” Appraisals made of Bárbara Italia Méndez Moreno and Ana María Velasco Rodríguez, and presented by the FEVIM on November 12, 2007 (evidence file, folios 24374 and 24446). See also, Answer to the request to incorporate the FEVIM appraisal (evidence file, folios 24353 and 24354). 378 Cf. Request to incorporate appraisals into the federal case file submitted by the Center Prodh on August 13, 2007 before the FEVIM (evidence file, folio 24351). 379 380 Cf. The State’s brief of October 15, 2012 (evidence file, folio 14322). Cf. UN, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Istanbul Protocol (Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment), New York and Geneva, 2004, para. 104, and Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No. 289, para. 255. 381