- 23 - 59. According to the information contained in the SCJN judgment, starting on April 12, 2006, security measures were put in place in the City Hall, as well as on Fray Pedro de Gante Street, in front of the market, with municipal and state police, 64 and this was reinforced on April 24, 2006, to prevent the flower-sellers from setting up their stalls there. However, the florists and the members of the FPDT set up stalls in front of the Belisario Domínguez market and, although they held meetings with officials from the Office of the Attorney General of the state of Mexico (PGJEM), they failed to reach an agreement. 65 On May 2, 2006, during another meeting, attended by Patricia Romero Hernández (leader of the flower-sellers), Ignacio del Valle Medina (leader of the FDPT) and authorities of the state of Mexico, but without the presence of any authority from the municipality of Texcoco, the Director General for Governance gave his assent to the request to withdraw the law enforcement personnel from around the market, “so that they could set up their stalls there the following day when the Day of the Holy Cross was celebrated.”66 However, that same day, the Texcoco municipal police force reinforced the security measures that had been set up on April 12, 2006.67 Municipal, state and federal police agents took part in the operations on May 3 and 4, 2006.68 A.3 The operation of May 3, 2006 60. At approximately 4 a.m., members of the municipal police force were deployed in front of the Belisario Domínguez market to avoid the flower-sellers setting up their stalls, while around 320 state police agents were deployed nearby as “dissuasive on-site support.” At around 7 a.m. more municipal agents arrived. Then, at around 7.10 a.m., the Texcoco flower-sellers and the members of the FPDT, who were carrying machetes, clubs, stones and explosive material, began to approach the Belisario Domínguez market.69 61. At around 7.25 a.m., a group of flower-sellers and their supporters tried to set up stalls to sell flowers in front of the market, but this was prevented by the Trade Regulation Directorate personnel. Consequently, the group retreated to the corner of Fray Pedro de Gante Street and Manuel González Street where they met up with a second group. A confrontation occurred between the police and the group of flower-sellers and FPDT members because, when trying to make them “retreat, the said police and Trade Regulation Directorate personnel beat them with batons and clubs, and [the flower-sellers and FPDT members], to avoid retreating, hit back at For the purposes of this judgment, the Court will understand by “state” everything that relates to the authorities of the state of Mexico, as an entity that forms part of the Mexican State, and by “federal” everything that relates to the authorities of the Mexican State. Furthermore, the reference to “State” authorities or organs refers to authorities or organs of the Mexican State as an international legal entity. 64 65 Cf. SCJN judgment of February 12, 2009 (evidence file, folios 30683 and 30684). SCJN judgment of February 12, 2009 (evidence file, folios 30685 and 30686), and cf. Preliminary report on the events of Atenco, Mexico, of the International Civil Commission for Human Rights of May 15, 2006, p. 22 (evidence file, folio 503), and Violencia de Estado contra las mujeres en México, el Caso San Salvador Atenco, p. 16 (evidence file, folio 508). However, according to the Deputy Secretary of Governance of the state of Mexico, “although, during the meeting of May 2, 2006…, (sic) the Director General for Governance was asked to withdraw the state police from around the Belisario Domínguez market, the withdrawal did not signify, as has been stated, an authorization to set up the flower stalls […] because only the Texcoco Municipality was empowered to authorize sales outside that market and not an official of the state government.” SCJN judgment of February 12, 2009 (evidence file, folio 30686). 66 According to the SCJN, the contingent of municipal police agents around the market increased from 20 to 57, and even more joined them on May 3, 2006, although it is not possible to determine the exact number. Cf. SCJN judgment of February 12, 2009 (evidence file, folios 30686 to 30688). 67 68 Cf. CNDH Recommendation No. 38/2006 of October 16, 2006, p. 37 (evidence file, folio 28552). 69 Cf. SCJN judgment of February 12, 2009 (evidence file, folios 30689, 30691 and 30692).