73 the Federal Code of Criminal Proceedings establishes that “[i]n all criminal proceedings, the victim or the parties injured by any crime will have the right to: […] collaborate with the Public Prosecutors’ Office.256” In this same line, Article 16 of the same code states that “[o]nly the defendant, his defense attorney, and the victim or injured party and/or their legal representative will have access to the case file of the preliminary inquiry […].”257 249. The Tribunal observes that, according to that stated by the representatives, and according to what can be concluded by the few documents provided by them, Mrs. Tita Radilla Martínez has had access to the case file of the preliminary inquiry in which the facts of the present case are being investigated. Without detriment of the aforementioned, their arguments seek to prove that she: 1) did not have access to the dossier of criminal case 46/2005 processed before the Second District Court in the State of Guerrero and 2) she has not been issued copied of the preliminary inquiry that is being carried out by the Attorney General of the Republic in this case, all this in violation of her right to “adequately exercise collaboration.” 250. Regarding access to the dossier of criminal case 46/2005, the Court has verified that Mrs. Radilla Martínez formally requested before the Second District Court in the State of Guerrero her verification as collaborator in the same, as well as access to the dossier and the decisions adopted by the Court.258 Before the apparent negative, Mrs. Radilla Martínez filed a complaint before the National Human Rights Commission.259 251. The Court does not have the decisions through which the authorities of the mentioned Court prevented Mrs. Tita Radilla Martínez or her legal representatives from accessing the case file in question. However, it is reasonable to assume that they have not provided them since they argue they did not have access to said case file. In that sense, the Tribunal points out that the State did not contest those facts either. 252. In this regard, the Tribunal considers that access to the case file is a requirement sine qua non of the victim’s procedural intervention in the proceedings in which it is constituted as a collaborative party or plaintiff, pursuant with domestic legislation. Even though the Court has considered it admissible that in certain cases there be reservation of the diligences 256 Cf. Federal Code of Criminal Procedures (dossier of appendixes to the respondent’s plea, appendix III(4), page 27). 257 page 5). Cf. Federal Code of Criminal Procedures (dossier of appendixes to the respondent’s plea, appendix III(4), 258 Cf. Complaint filed by Mrs. Tita Radilla Martínez through which she requested her accreditation as collaborator in criminal case 46/2005 before the Second District Court in Acapulco de Juárez, uerrero, of September 1, 2005 (dossier of appendixes to the brief of pleadings nd motions, appendix E(1), folio 1979); brief filed by Mrs. Tita Radilla Martínez before the Second District Court in Acapulco de Juárez, Guerrero, through which she requested the issuance of copies of all that acted in criminal case 46/2005, of September 1, 2005 (dossier of appendixes to the brief of pleadings and motions, appendix E(2), folio 1981), and brief filed by Mrs. Tita Radilla Martínez before the Attorney General of the Republic, Delegation of the State of Guerrero, through which she requested her accreditation as collaborator in criminal case 46/2005 processed before the Second District Court in Acapulco de Juárez, Guerrero, on September 1, 2005 (dossier of appendixes to the brief of pleadings and arguments, appendix E(3), folios 1982 through 1983). 259 Cf. Complaint filed by Mrs. Tita Radilla Martínez before the National Human Rights Commission on August 31, 2005 (dossier of appendixes to the brief of pleadings and motions, appendix E(4), folios 1984 through 1985). In it she stated that “[t]he fact that the authorities mentioned have illegally and illegitimately denied [her] access to case file 46/2005, le[ft her] defenseless, since it [did] not allow [her] to know the grounds and reasons the District Judge had to declare himself unfit and [that,] therefore violate[d her] right […] to appeal, through adequate and effective legal means, the decision the affect[ed her] juridical interests.”