Criminal Judge of Tlalnepantla. 98 In an indirect amparo proceeding, on August 24, 2017, the Judge of the Fourth District of Naucalpan ordered the trial judge to process the motion for review of the precautionary measures, a decision that was ratified by the Second Collegiate Court of the Second District on January 18, 2018. 99 84. On June 13, 2016, the defendants requested the review and suspension of the pretrial detention claiming that had become an anticipated sentence. 100 On July 7, 2016, the Criminal Court of First Instance declared their motion inadmissible, pointing out that the Constitution established preventive detention for serious crimes and that a review of the precautionary measure was not contemplated in the applicable legislation. 101 85. On October 16, 2017, the First Instance Criminal Judge of the Judicial District of Tlalnepantla, state of Mexico, who was hearing the criminal case, ordered the closure of the investigation and declared the matter ready for the issuance of the corresponding ruling. 102 86. On January 30, 2018, the First Instance Criminal Judge denied an appeal for review; she indicated that the length of the trial was attributable to the intense activity of the defendants and that there was a risk of flight on the part of Daniel García. 103 His risk of flight was analyzed on January 11, 2018, by the Center for Precautionary Measures and Conditional Suspension of Proceedings, which concluded that Daniel García was a “medium risk” subject, taking into account the 50-year sentence assigned to the crime of homicide. 104 Reyes Alpízar’s risk of absconding was not analyzed, since the only time such an assessment was attempted in prison by the State Center for Precautionary Measures, on December 21, 2017, Reyes Alpízar refused the evaluation. 105 87. On August 23, 2019, the First Instance Criminal Judge of the Judicial District of Tlalnepantla, agreed to replace the mandatory preventive detention with other precautionary measures for Daniel García Rodríguez and Reyes Alpízar Ortiz, 106 in the proceedings against them. That same day they were released, 107 and as of that date they continue to follow their trial in that condition 98 Cf. Information contained in the Judgment of February 1, 2018, Second Collegiate Court on Criminal Matters of the Second circuit, Appeal for Review 312/2017 (evidence file, folios 2987 to 3018). 99 Cf. Judgment of February 1, 2018, Second Collegiate Court on Criminal Matters of the Second Circuit, Appeal for Review 312/2017 (evidence file, folios 2987 to 3018). 100 Cf. Amparo N. 1613/2017-V. Appeal for Review of precautionary measures, (evidence file, folios 3046 to 3058). 101 Cf. Information contained in the Judgment of Appeal, December 12, 2017, First Appeals Court for Criminal Matters of Tlalnepantla, Mexico (evidence file, folios 3061 to 3090). Cf. Information contained in the Judgment of June 8, 2018, issued by the Fourth District Judge of the state of Mexico, resolving the indirect amparo proceeding number 1813/2017-V (evidence file, folios 2316 to 2332). 102 After analyzing the statements of various witnesses regarding the conduct of Daniel García while he worked as a public servant, the judge in the case affirmed that “it can be established that the accused did not conduct himself with honesty, loyalty or rectitude in the exercise of his duties as private secretary of the Municipal President of Atizapán de Zaragoza, which is why they indicated that he was dismissed from that municipality […]making the risk of the accused escaping justice more likely if the precautionary measure of preventive detention is modified.” Cf. Ruling on motion of January 30, 2018, First Instance Criminal Judge of the Judicial District of Tlalnepantla, unspecified motion for review and lifting of the precautionary measure of pretrial detention (evidence file, folios 2559 to 2643). 103 104 Cf. Information contained in the ruling of January 30, 2018, First Instance Criminal Judge of the Judicial District of Tlalnepantla, unspecified motion for review and suspension of precautionary measure of pretrial detention (evidence file, folios 2559 to 2643). 105 Cf. Ruling on motion, January 30, 2018, First Instance Criminal Judge of the Tlalnepantla Judicial District, unspecified motion for review and suspension of precautionary measure of pretrial detention (evidence file, folios 2559 to 2643). 106 Cf. Judicial branch of the state of Mexico. Criminal Court of the Tlalnepantla Judicial District. Judgment of May 12, 2022, Tlalnepantla de Baz, state of Mexico (evidence file, folios 70391 to 71350). Cf. Appellate ruling, December 12, 2017, First Court of Appeals in Criminal Matters of Tlalnepantla, state of Mexico (evidence file, folios 3061 to 3090). 107 -24-