- 46 - May 3 and 4, 2006, understanding prima facie that they involved serious human rights violations.145 123. The SCJN set up a commission of inquiry composed of two justices146 to investigate “the reasons for the violations that occurred on May 3 and 4, 2006, in the municipalities of Texcoco and San Salvador de Atenco; whether someone ordered them, and whether they were the result of a state strategy when the situation got out of hand, and of the deficient understanding of the situation, training of the police, etcetera.” However, owing to a subsequent amendment, this inquiry could “not refer to aspects related to either civil or legal forms of reparation for the violation of guarantees, or possible civil, criminal, administrative or political responsibilities.”147 However, the SCJN noted that the individuals who had taken part in the events should be identified.148 124. The Commission of Inquiry opened a case file and conducted interviews, requested information from individuals connected to the events and third parties interested in supporting the inquiry.149 On March 10, 2008, the Commission delivered its conclusions to the Plenary of the SCJN150 and to 144 persons involved in the facts so that they could submit any observations or documentation they deemed pertinent.151 On February 12, 2009, the Plenary of the SCJN delivered a ruling based on the report of the Commission of Inquiry, in which: (i) it established the background information and the way in which the operations of May 3 and 4, 2006, in Texcoco and San Salvador de Atenco had been executed; (ii) it concluded that “serious violations of individual guarantees had been committed”; (iii) it established the responsibility of the State for using law enforcement agents “excessively, disproportionately, inefficiently, unprofessionally and in a manner careless of respect for human rights”; (iv) it individualized those possibly responsible, without determining responsibility of any kind, and noted that “the competent designate one or several special commissioners, when it deems it appropriate or this is requested by the Federal Executive or one of the Chambers of the Congress of the Union, or the Governor of a state, solely to investigate any act or acts that constitute a serious violation of any individual guarantee. It may also request the Council of the Federal Judiciary to investigate the conduct of any judge or federal magistrate […]. Constitution of the United Mexican States (in force in 2006), art. 97.2 (evidence file, folio 23156). This authority has been exercised infrequently and only in serious cases. Cf. Resolution on the request to exercise the authority to investigate of the SCJN of February 6, 2007 (evidence file, folios 1612 to 1614). Nowadays, this authority has been transferred to the CNDH. Cf. Decree amending the name of Chapter I of the First Title and amendment of diverse articles of the Constitution of the United Mexican States, dated June 10, 2011. Cf. SCJN judgment of February 12, 2009 (evidence file, folios 31341 to 31348), and Resolution on the request to exercise the authority to investigate of the SCJN of February 6, 2007 (evidence file, folio 1626). 145 Cf. SCJN judgment of February 12, 2009 (evidence file, folio 31688), and Resolution on the request to exercise the authority to investigate of the SCJN of February 6, 2007 (evidence file, folio 1629). 146 Initially, the Commission of Inquiry was also supposed “to rule on the forms of reparation” and “possible civil, criminal, administrative or political responsibilities.” Resolution on the request to exercise the authority to investigate of the SCJN of February 6, 2007 (evidence file, folios 1628 and 1629). However, subsequently, the Plenary issued General Decision 16/2007, which amended the powers of commissions of inquiry established under article 97 of the Constitution, so that they should “restrict [themselves] exclusively to the facts determined by the Plenary in the resolution deciding to appoint them,” and could not “adjudicate responsibilities, but only identify the persons who may have participated in the acts classified as serious violations of individual guarantees.” SCJN judgment of February 12, 2009 (evidence file, folios 31436 and 31437). 147 148 Cf. SCJN judgment of February 12, 2009 (evidence file, folio 30659). 149 Cf. SCJN judgment of February 12, 2009 (evidence file, folio 30668). 150 Cf. SCJN judgment of February 12, 2009 (evidence file, folio 30660). The report was sent to 147 persons involved in the events. However, only 144 were notified, because one of them was deceased and it was impossible to find two others. Cf. SCJN judgment of February 12, 2009 (evidence file, folio 30671). 151