body of Mr. Reyes Alpízar Ortiz.” 135 96. On September 22, 2010, Reyes Alpízar filed a new motion denouncing acts of torture. 136 On September 24, 2010, the Fifth Criminal Judge dismissed it, pointing out that the torture had been reported on November 28, 2002, but “it is not evident that he had filed a complaint for the crime of torture or any other.” 137 This decision was upheld on August 15, 2011. 138 97. On May 7, 2012, at an evidence hearing, Daniel García asked the Fifth Criminal Judge “to allow the investigating public prosecutor to access” the certificates, evidence, documents and medical examinations related to the acts of torture that Reyes Alpízar claims to have suffered. 139 The judge decided “to follow what was agreed in the order of September 24, 2010 […].” 140 98. The alleged victims then filed an indirect amparo, 141 which was admitted on August 23, 2012, by the Eighth District Court of Naucalpan, with the judge observing that “said decision violated the guarantees of due process and legality […].” Accordingly, he ordered the revocation of the appealed order and ordered the Public Prosecutor’s Office to hear the case. 142 There is no record that the Fifth Criminal Judge sent the information to the Public Prosecutor’s Office or amended her decisions following these instructions. ii. Regarding the acts of torture allegedly suffered by Daniel García Rodríguez 99. With regard to Daniel García Rodríguez, it was indicated that on April 11, 2002 he stated that during the period when he was under arraigo, he was arrested by deception, detained by force and under threat, and that when he refused to sign prefabricated statements incriminating a Senator and the Municipal President, he was threatened and warned that he and his family members would be accused (supra para. 72). On April 11, 2002, the Public Prosecutor’s Office requested certification of physical injuries and the private defense attorney requested an examination to verify psychological violence. Both requests were denied by the Fifth Criminal Judge, who did not consider them to be relevant evidence and ordered the medical certificate of admission to the prison to be sent. 135 Fifth Criminal Court of First Instance. Evidence hearing and Board of Experts. Tlalnepantla, state of Mexico, February 17, 2010 (evidence file, folios 1889-1916). Cf. Brief of Reyes Alpízar Ortiz. Unspecified motion filed before the Fifth Criminal Court of First Instance. Case 88/2002. With reception stamp of September 22, 2010 (evidence file, folios 1918 to 2011). 136 He also stated that “from that date, the complainant alleged, according to his assessment, that the acts constituted torture; since then he has had the right to assert this before the corresponding authority.” Regarding the evidence of alleged torture, he indicated that “of course, it will be a matter for evaluation and analysis at the moment in which the legal situation is definitively resolved,” insisting that he had the “right” to assert the allegations of torture “before the corresponding authorities.” Cf. Fifth Criminal Court of First Instance. Ruling on motion. Tlalnepantla, state of Mexico, September 24, 2010 (evidence file, folios 2013 to 2017). 137 138 Cf. Fifth Criminal Court of First Instance. Criminal case: 88/2002. Matter: Report submitted. Official letter: 1010. Tlalnepantla de Baz, Mexico, August 15, 2011 (evidence file, folios 2019 to 2032), and Fifth Criminal Court of First Instance. Criminal case: 88/2002. Matter: Report submitted. Official letter: 1016. Tlalnepantla de Baz, Mexico, August 16, 2011 (evidence file, folios 2034 to 2045). 139 Cf. Fifth Criminal Court of First Instance. Criminal case: 88/2002. Matter: Report submitted. Official letter: 1010. Tlalnepantla de Baz, Mexico, August 15, 2011 (evidence file, folios 2019 to 2032), and Fifth Criminal Court of First Instance. Criminal case: 88/2002. Matter: Report submitted. Official letter: 1016. Tlalnepantla de Baz, Mexico, August 16, 2011 (evidence file, folios 2034 to 2045). 140 Cf. Fifth Criminal Court of First Instance. Evidence hearing. Tlalnepantla, state of Mexico, May 7, 2012, file 3251432519 (evidence file, folios 2047 to 2058). 141 Cf. Brief of Daniel García Ortiz and Reyes Alpízar Ortiz. Indirect amparo. May 14, 2012 (evidence file, folios 2059 to 2100). Cf. Eighth District Court of the state of Mexico. Judgment in amparo proceeding No. 597/2012-E. Naucalpan de Juarez, Mexico. August 23, 2012 (evidence file, folios 2101 to 2134). 142 -28-