53 hear complaints against any public authority or official, with the exception of those of the Judiciary of the Federation, as well as electoral, labor, and jurisdictional matters.” Among others, “[i]ts work consists of investigating and documenting abuses to human rights and in using a series of instruments to resolve the cases;” in that sense, the “recommendation” is the most common instrument used. The State also indicated that “[w]hen generalized practices or systematic abuses are documented, the National Commission may publish a ‘special report’ or a ‘general recommendation’ that usually proposes how the authority shall approach the documented abuse.”165 176. The Court observes that, as a result of the investigation carried out in the specific case, the National Commission generically stated that “[m]embers of the Mexican army attached to the State of Guerrero” arbitrarily detained Mr. Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco, who is still missing (supra para. 127).166 In this regard, the representatives argued that even though the investigation carried out by the National Commission “[i]s very valuable and its conclusions provide valuable elements of elucidation of the facts[, these] do not substitute the Public Prosecutors’ Office’s activity.” 177. In effect, in Recommendation 26/2001, the National Commission stated that “[i]ts ability to issue a ruling with regard to the commission of any crime was limited, since its jurisdiction in this matter corresponds exclusively to the Public Prosecutors’ Office[, for which] neither [the] National Commission, nor any other federal or local public authority, different to the Public Prosecutors’ Office can state their opinion in this regard and it corresponds only to the Judiciary to indicate if a person is the author of or responsible for a criminal act.167” 178. The Inter-American Court has already established that the obligation to investigate the facts, prosecute, and, if that is the case, punish those responsible of a crime that constitutes a violation of human rights is a commitment that results from the American Convention, and that the criminal responsibility shall be determined by the competent judicial authorities, strictly following the rules of the due process established in Article 8 of the American Convention.168 179. In this regard, the Court considers it appropriate to reiterate, as it has done in other cases, that the “historical truth” documented in the reports and recommendations of bodies such as the National Commission, does not complete or substitute the State’s obligation to 165 The Court also observes that additionally, the State indicated that “[i]n Mexico, the criminal legal proceedings start when the investigating authority, in this case, the agent of the public prosecutors’ office of the federation, knows of an alleged criminal act, that is, when it receives noticia criminis”. Likewise, it indicated that “[d]espite the acknowledgment of the actions of the autonomous human rights jurisdictional body in this case, according to Mexican legislation […] the complaints before the [National Commission do not] constitute strictu sensu an acknowledgement of noticia criminis.” 166 Cf. Exp. CNDH/PDS/95/GRO/S00228.000, Case of Mr. Radilla-Pacheco Rosendo, Civic War Association and Revolutionary League of the South “Emiliano Zapata”, Special Report on the Complaints in Matters of Forced Disappearance Occurred in the Decade of the 70s and Beginning of the 80s (dossier of appendixes to the application, appendix 2, folio 869, and dossier of appendixes to the brief of pleadings and motions, appendix C, folios 1679 through 1683). 167 Recommendation 26/2001 of the National Human Rights Commission (dossier of appendixes to the application, appendix 3, folio 890 and dossier of appendixes to the respondent’s plea, appendix V(2), page 18). 168 Cf. Case of Huilca Tecse v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of March 3, 2005. Series C No. 121, para. 106.