conflict of jurisdiction over the case,3 on April 5, 2002, theDirector General de Averiguaciones Previas de la Procuradoría de Guerrero [Director General of Preliminary Inquiries of the Office of the Attorney General of Guerrero] sent the initial inquiry to the branch of the Office of the Attorney General specialized in sexual crimes and crimes of domestic violence of the judicial district of Morelos, with its seat in Tlapa of Comonfort. Along with the results of the investigation, the office forwarded the gynecological medical report, dated March 19, 2002. According to the petitioners, due to the time elapsed from the alleged rape to the moment of the medical exam, the report stated that the exam did not find traces of vaginal penetration, but it did find evidence of corporal violence.4 In turn, Cristina Estrada Martínez, incumbent of the Investigative Branch of the Office of the Attorney General specialized in sexual crimes and domestic violence of the judicial district of Morelos, informed the Procuraduría General de Justicia del Estado [Office of the Attorney General of the State] that a preliminary inquiry related to the case was launched on April 15, 2002. According to the petitioners it is this date that really marks the beginning of the investigation, when the investigating agent ordered the first tests. 11. The petitioners contend that on April 8, 2002, the Assistant Attorney General for Criminal Proceedings, Miguel Barreto Sedeño requested that the office charged with the investigation “carry out a legal study in order to examine the possibility of referring the case to the prosecutor of the appropriate military court, since it is the military venue where the case belongs, according to the application of the law to the individuals, and in order for the case to be solved and those responsible be punished.”5 Hence, on May 16, 2002, the Agente Titular del Ministerio Público del Fuero Común [incumbent prosecutor of the Office of the Attorney General in the Civil Jurisdiction] charged with the case disqualified herself and referred the preliminary inquiry to the Director General of Preliminary Inquiries of the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Guerrero, for it to be in turn referred to the appropriate Military prosecutor. 12. In view of this decision, the petitioners state that the alleged victim then lodged an amparo petition [protection of constitutional rights] challenging this recusal on June 6, 2002, before the Primer Juzgado de Distrito del Vigésimo Primer Circuito [First District Court of the 21st Circuit] in Chilpancingo, Guerrero, arguing that it should be civil authorities who investigate and try the crimes of which she was the victim, and not the military authorities, who lack independence and impartiality. The amparo was denied on August 30, 2002. The alleged victim then filed an appeal for an amparo review, but the appealed judgment was upheld on November 12, 2002. 13. According to the petitioners, in response to the foregoing, on November 28, 2002, the alleged victim wrote to the Agente del Ministerio Público Militar [Military Prosecutor] attached to Military Zone 35 in Chilpancingo, Guerrero, inquiring whether he had accepted to hear the case, given that the prosecutor of the Office of the Attorney General in the Civil Jurisdiction specialized in sexual crimes and crimes of domestic violence of the judicial district of Morelos had recused herself. Should the answer be in the affirmative, she requested that he disqualify himself from hearing the case, on the grounds that the assumption of military jurisdiction would be unconstitutional. Not having received a response, the alleged victim visited the aforementioned Office of the Military Prosecutor, where she was informed that the investigation had been referred to the Procuraduría General de Justicia Militar [Office of the Attorney General for Military Justice] in Mexico City. The lawyers of the PRODH Center then personally visited this institution, and on January 20, 2003, the Office of the Attorney General for Military Justice issued a communication informing that it had accepted jurisdiction and that 3 On March 18, 2002, for lack of jurisdiction, the preliminary inquiry ALLE/SC/02/62/2002 was referred to the Office of the General Director of Preliminary Inquiries, so that the latter office would forward it to the Agencia del Ministerio Público del Fuero Común del Distrito Judicial de Morelos [Office of the Attorney General, Civil Jurisdiction, Branch of the Judicial District of Morelos]. The Morelos Office, in turn, would be the one in charge of the follow up of the investigation, given that the facts occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of the Judicial District of Morelos. On March 28, 2002, in letter PGJE/DGAP/2247/2002, the Director of Preliminary Inquiries returned the record of proceedings in order that the investigation be continued by the Agencia del Ministerio Público del Fuero Común del Distrito Judicial de Allende [Office of the Attorney General, Civil Jurisdiction, Branch of the Judicial District of Allende], in Ayutla los Libres, Guerrero 4 Petitioners’ communication dated November 4, 2003, p. 4 5 Communication No. 0676 from the subprocurador de procedimientos penales [Assistant Attorney General for Criminal Proceedings], Miguel Barreto Sedeño dated April 8, 2002. 3