however, on September 13, 2004, he was informed that “the head of the federal executive is not invested with any legal power to influence or intervene in this matter.” 149 In 2007, Daniel García and Reyes Alpízar filed two complaints before the National Human Rights Commission (CNDH), which stated that it did not have jurisdiction in the matter. In the context of another complaint filed in 2008, the CNDH concluded that there were no “external injuries due to the fact that six years have passed and, therefore, at this point the expert physician did not have technical or medical information to confirm or rule out the injuries and torture reported by the victim.” 150 On October 16, 2017, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention issued an opinion characterizing the detention of the alleged victims as arbitrary. 151 F.2. Regarding the acts of torture allegedly suffered by Reyes Alpízar Ortiz a) Preliminary investigation TLA/MR/III/1973/2006 in the case of Reyes Alpízar Ortiz 105. On December 29, 2006, preliminary investigation TLA/MR/III/1973/2006 was opened, in response to the written statement signed by Reyes Alpízar Ortiz, in which he reported acts that possibly constituted a crime of torture against him. 152 106. On May 24, 2013, the Third Criminal Judge of First Instance of the Judicial District of Tlalnepantla, ordered an investigation to be opened into the crime of torture, to the detriment of Daniel García Rodríguez, and forwarded a certified copy of the preliminary statement dated April 11, 2002. As a result, preliminary investigation TLA/MR/I/15/2013 was initiated, which was joined to the main investigation TLA/MR/III/1973/2006. This investigation prompted the prosecution service of the Special Prosecutor’s Office for Combating Corruption to decide on April 26, 2018, not to prosecute. 107. The State pointed out - without this being contested - that the Special Prosecutor’s Office for the Investigation of Torture had carried out more than 500 procedures in the context of the preliminary investigation. 153 108. On April 27, 2018, the Regional Prosecutor of Tlalnepantla issued a decision in which he confirmed the decision not to prosecute. 154 109. On April 30, 2018, and May 1, 2018, this decision was notified to Daniel García Rodríguez and Reyes Alpízar Ortiz, respectively, who requested a review of the confirmation of the decision not to prosecute. On October 10, 2018, the preliminary inquiry was referred to the FGJEM, for the substantiation of the review requested by the victims. 110. On October 24, 2018, the General Inspector of the PGJEM confirmed the refusal to prosecute issued by the Regional Prosecutor of Tlalnepantla, and notified this decision to Daniel García Rodríguez and Reyes Alpízar Ortiz on November 16 and 30, 2018, respectively. The complainants filed an amparo proceeding 1760/2017 before the Second District Court in the state of Mexico, against the decision of the General Inspector, which confirmed the decision not to prosecute. As a Cf. Transcript of the complaint submitted to the President of the Republic by Reyes Alpízar Ortiz, response and referral (evidence file, folios 2189). 149 150 Cf. National Commission of Human Rights, Mexico. File: OIC/ARIN/51/08, Official letter: OIC/ARIN/627/08, November 11, 2008 (evidence file, folios 2183 to 2184). Cf. Human Rights Council, Opinion 66/201 regarding Daniel García Rodríguez and Reyes Alpízar Ortiz (Mexico) (evidence file, folios 20145 to 20155). 151 Cf. Judiciary of the state of Mexico. Criminal Court of the Judicial District of Tlalnepantla. Judgment of May 12, 2022, Tlalnepantla de Baz, state of Mexico (evidence file, folios 70437). 152 153 Cf. See page 90 of the answering brief and evidence file (evidence file, folios 23555 to 42505). 154 Cf. Order of March 30, 2018, notifying the decision not to prosecute in the preliminary investigation TLA/MR/III/19/3/2006 (evidence file, folio 2139). -30-