- 56 - 147. The FEVIM conducted various procedures,213 including receiving the statements and complaints of the eleven women.214 On July 13, 2009, the FEVIM “waived jurisdiction ex officio” because “[t]he statements reveal that the public servants who intervened in the acts that probably constituted offenses […] belong to police forces of the state of Mexico” and “there is no evidence of the participation of federal public servants […] in the acts of torture suffered by the victims and that are the acts that this office investigated.”215 Consequently, it considered that the facts fell under “common rather than federal law” and thus under the jurisdiction of the investigative organs of the state of Mexico where the wrongful acts had taken place. Despite this conclusion, in the decision waiving jurisdiction, the FEVIM indicated that it had established that the corpus delicti of torture and egregious violations of the human rights of the women had been proved, as well as the probable participation of at least 34 members of the state police forces. 216 IX MERITS 148. The instant case relates to the international responsibility of the Mexican State for the conduct of state agents before, during and after a social protest that took place in the municipalities of Texcoco and San Salvador de Atenco in May 2006. In particular, the case refers to the detention and police abuse, including sexual abuse, of eleven women who were arrested in the context of that event, as well as the presumed absence of a proper investigation of the facts. 149. In this chapter, the Court will examine the merits of the case, taking into account the State’s partial acknowledgement of responsibility accepted in Chapter V of this judgment. In order to clarify the scope of Mexico’s international responsibility for the facts of this case, the Court will examine the alleged violations as follows: (1) the rights to personal integrity, dignity and privacy and the prohibition of torture in connection with the obligation to respect and guarantee, without discrimination, the rights recognized in Articles 5 and 11 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, as well as Articles 7(a) of the Convention of Belém do Pará and 1 and 6 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture; (2) the right to personal liberty and the right of defense recognized in Articles 7 and 8 of the American Convention, in relation to In addition, among other matters, it requested copies of the CNDH case file and also lists and photographs of the members of the Federal Preventive Police who took part in the events, and obtained the reports of several police agents. Cf. The State’s brief before the Commission of October 15, 2012 (evidence file, folios 14318 and 14319). 213 Cf. Statement made by Norma Aidé Jiménez Osorio on May 25, 2006, before the FEVIM (evidence file, folio 802); statement made by Georgina Edith Rosales Gutiérrez on May 25, 2006, before the FEVIM (evidence file, folio 1114); statement made by María Patricia Romero Hernández on May 25, 2006, before the FEVIM (evidence file, folio 904); statement made by Mariana Selvas Gómez on May 25, 2006, before the FEVIM (evidence file, folio 1012); statement made by Suhelen Gabriela Cuevas Jaramillo on May 25, 2006, before the FEVIM (evidence file, folio 1284); expansion of the complaint filed by Bárbara Italia Méndez Moreno on June 14, 2006, before the FEVIM (evidence file, folio 1439); expansion of the complaint filed by Claudia Hernández Martínez on June 14, 2006, before the FEVIM (evidence file, folio 1586); statement and expansion of the complaint filed by Ana María Velasco Rodríguez on June 15, 2006, before the FEVIM (evidence file, folio 1219); expansion of the complaint filed by Yolanda Muñoz Diosdada on June 15, 2006, before the FEVIM (evidence file, folio 701); statement made by Cristina Sánchez Hernández on June 15, 2006, before the FEVIM (evidence file, folio 8905), and statement made by Angélica Patricia Torres Linares on June 19, 2006, before the FEVIM (evidence file, folio 1511). 214 Cf. Transcript of the decision waiving jurisdiction of July 13, 2009 (evidence file, folios 24522 to 24524). As the legal grounds for waiving jurisdiction, the FEVIM used PGR Decision A/024/08 which indicated that “it has authority to investigate those acts of violence against women that fall within the federal jurisdiction or that are based on ordinary criminal laws related to federal offenses.” FEVIM communication FEVIMTRA-C/DAP/2218/2009 received on July 15, 2009 (evidence file, folio 5021). 215 Cf. Transcript of the decision waiving jurisdiction of July 13, 2009 (evidence file, folios 24522 to 24524), and FEVIM communication FEVIMTRA-C/DAP/2218/2009 received on July 15, 2009 (evidence file, folio 5021). 216