63 209. However, the Tribunal has verified that based on the investigations that were transferred to the General Investigation Coordination, the diligences have been addressed mainly to the “location” of Mr. Radilla-Pacheco, and not to the determination of other possible responsible parties. The aforementioned is confirmed with that indicated by the witness Martha Patricia Valadez Sanabria.213 Likewise, the State of Mexico itself indicated that “[t]he recent diligences that are being carried out follow specific, true, and effective lines of investigation in order to locate Mr. Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco or explain his whereabouts.” 210. The Court considers it convenient to state that, pursuant with the Presidential Agreement through which the Special Prosecutors’ Office was created, the latter responded to “[t]he demands of elucidation of the facts and of justice for those who had allegedly disappeared for political reasons,” which “[d]emand[ed] a clear response from the authorities informing of the truth […] based on a reconciliation that respected their memory and helped the achievement of justice.”214 In that sense, according to that indicated by the State, one of the objectives of the tasks of the Special Prosecutors’ Office was the documentary and historical investigation “[w]ith the final purpose of elucidating the facts and spreading upon the record the historical truth” in the commission of the “crimes” that were being investigated.”215 211. The Special Prosecutors’ Office was closed based on the argument that “[t]he level of progress in the investigations carried out,” made it appropriate that the preliminary inquiries and the pending criminal proceedings be taken before other administrative unit of the Attorney General’s Office, who should follow those investigations “with identical dedication.”216 In that sense, the case files were transferred to the General Investigation Coordination (supra para. 189). In this regard, the Court points out that the National Human Rights Commission of Mexico has considered that the work carried out by the Attorney General of the Republic “[h]as not achieved the necessary progress and [its] 213 Cf. Statement offered by the Attorney Martha Patricia Valadez Sanabria before notary public (affidavit) on June 18, 2009 (dossier of merits, volume IV, folios 1434 through 1441). Besides the scanning and excavation diligences, the witness only referred to a “[l]egal certification filed on February 5, 2009, before the agent of the public prosecutors’ office of the federation, attached to the General Investigation Coordination, María Sirvent Bravo Ahuja, to the effect of informing herself and going over the general status of preliminary inquiry SIEDF/CGI/454/2007 […].” Similarly, she stated that “[o]n June 17, 2009, she received and added to the inquiry, a certified copy of different legal certifications regarding the criminal proceedings started in the military jurisdiction against Francisco Quiros [sic] Hermosillo […].” 214 This Presidential Agreement also stated that “[t]he unavoidable search of the truth, necessarily, impl[ied] a revision of the past facts and [that] in that sense, there [was] an ample social consensus to respond to that complaint and set the conditions for a national reconciliation as a fundamental requirement to strengthen [the] institutions, the constitutional state and democratic legitimacy.” Cf. Agreement of the Executive Branch, Presidency of the Republic, through which several measures are ordered for the serving of justice for crimes committed against people linked to social and political movements of the past, of November 27, 2001 (dossier of appendixes to the brief of pleadings and motions, appendix H(1), folio 2143 and dossier of appendixes to the respondent’s plea, appendix VI(1), page 1). 215 Cf. Respondent’s Plea (dossier of merits, volume II, folio 659) Cf. similarly, the General Organization Manual of the Attorney General of the Republic, published in the Official Gazette of the Federation on April 25, 2005, part that refers to the Special Prosecutors’ Office for Social and Political Movements of the Past (dossier of appendixes to the respondent’s plea, Appendix VI(4), pages 125 through 130) 216 Cf. Agreement A/317/06 of the Attorney General of the Republic, of November 30, 2006 (dossier of appendixes to the brief of pleadings and motions, appendix H(3), folios 2164 through 2165 and dossier of appendixes to the respondent’s plea, appendix VI(2), page 2).