- 106 - evidence was sufficient to justify the opening of lines of investigation relating to the command responsibility of the superiors. 295. In this case, the Court considers that there was sufficient evidence to justify the opening of a line of investigation in relation to the command responsibility of the officials in charge of the operations of May 3 and 4. 296. First, the Court notes that there was sufficient evidence that the officials had the material capacity to prevent and punish the acts. Indeed, the Court notes that, despite “the climate of violence, confrontation and excesses” that, according to the SCJN, characterized the operations, the police maintained their organizational capacity, 405 which is demonstrated by testimony revealing that the police agents were able to adapt their conduct based on verbal orders or in the presence of the media (supra paras. 78 and 87). Second, there is evidence that the authorities knew or should have known that the acts were occurring. The SCJN judgment indicates that, owing to the way in which the sexual abuse occurred, “perhaps it was more difficult for the superior officers of the police to be aware of it in real time while it was occurring; thus, owing to the lack of visibility, the court cannot establish criminal omission for failing to make them stop.”406 In this regard, the Court notes that it is not necessary for the superior to have specific details of the wrongful acts committed or about to be committed; rather, it is sufficient that he has some general information that alerts him to possible wrongful acts of his subordinates.407 The Court observes that the operation was given extensive media coverage in real time and was supervised by land and air by the superior officers of those who were executing it; accordingly, even if those officers had no sure knowledge of the sexual abuse that was occurring, they did have general information indicating a risk that it might occur. Lastly, a third indication that would have justified the opening of lines of investigation into the command responsibility relates to the failure to take steps to prevent and/or to punish the acts. The Court notes that, in this case, there is no evidence that allows it to suppose that the authorities took the necessary steps to prevent or to punish the perpetration of the said wrongful acts. 408 The Court therefore concludes that there was sufficient evidence to justify opening lines of investigation to determine whether the authorities in charge of the operations failed to prevent or to investigate the acts of torture, even though they were in a position to do so. 297. This Court is not a criminal court, but it cannot overlook the fact that the State’s omission in relation to the chain of command should have been investigated based on the reports that would have reached the superior authorities, not only in the eventuality that they had ignored the done so, and (3) that he did not take all necessary and reasonable measures to prevent the crimes and/or to punish the perpetrator. Cf. Expert opinion of Susana SáCouto (evidence file, folio 37133). In this regard, the SCJN noted that “[t]he organizational capacity [..] revealed by the police calls into question their version that it was impossible to halt the violence that had been unleashed.” SCJN judgment of February 12, 2009 (evidence file, folios 120 and 310). 405 406 SCJN judgment of February 12, 2009 (evidence file, folios 31199 and 31200). 407 Cf. Expert opinion of Susana SáCouto (evidence file, folios 37136 and 37137). To the contrary, the SCJN considered “reprehensible […] that, aware of the magnitude of the operation, measures were not taken to prevent the perpetration of [sexual abuse],” stressing also “the lack of foresight to include women police agents; measures to separate the women from the men following their detention, and the lack of planning to have video cameras or observers in the trucks.” It added that “the inquiry does not establish that any measures were taken when the violence broke out and, furthermore, that such conduct was penalized once this occurred. Indeed, the abuses did not stop; consequently, they were tolerated and, when investigated, the investigations conducted to date have not been effective and have not led to the punishment of that conduct.” SCJN judgment of February 12, 2009 (evidence file, folio 31199). 408