- 52 - issued.188 The Public Prosecution Service appealed this decision.189 On July 10, 2013, the Appeals Court revoked the dismissal with regard to the crime of torture and confirmed it for the offenses of abuse of authority and injuries.190 On July 10, 2014, the Public Prosecution Service corrected the criminal case against the twenty-six police agents against whom the arrest warrants had not been issued for the crime of torture perpetrated against twelve (12) women, ten (10) of whom are part of this case, and requested arrest warrants against them. 191 On September 17, 2014, arrest warrants were issued for twenty-six police agents under criminal case 55/2013 (previously 418/2011), being heard by the First Criminal Trial Court of the Toluca Judicial District (hereinafter, “the First Criminal Court of Toluca”)192. 138. According to the most recent information provided by the State, in the context of the criminal case sixteen (16) of the arrest warrants have been executed and ten (10) are pending. Also, of the twenty-nine individuals charged in the case, a formal order of preventive detention has been issued against eighteen of them.193 Some of the police agents have filed applications for amparo against the arrest warrant or the order of preventive detention. Of these applications, some have been decided unfavorably, denying the amparo, and others are pending a decision. 194 When deciding these applications for amparo, the courts have determined, in exercise of control of conventionality, that the crime of torture is not subject to a statute of limitations. 195 Furthermore, the State has reported that “the PGJ asked the district courts and the Council of the Cf. Order to constitute the First Criminal Trial Court in Toluca of October 15, 2014 (evidence file, folios 1652 to 1658). 188 Cf. Order to constitute the First Criminal Trial Court in Toluca of October 15, 2014 (evidence file, folios 1658 to 1660). 189 Cf. Order to constitute the First Criminal Trial Court in Toluca of October 15, 2014 (evidence file, folios 1658 to 1660). 190 191 Cf. PGJEM brief correcting the criminal case of July 10, 2014 (evidence file, folios 8526 and 8527). Cf. The State’s report on compliance with the recommendations of the Merits Report of September 5, 2016 (evidence file, folios 24617 to 24629). 192 Cf. The State’s report on compliance with the recommendations of the Merits Report of September 5, 2016 (evidence file, folio 30498). 193 Regarding the arrest warrants, the State reported that 13 police agents had filed an application for amparo, and it had been denied in all 13 cases; of these 13, two agents filed appeals for review, which are pending a decision. Regarding the order for preventive detention, of the 18 police agents committed to trial, seven filed appeals and these are pending a decision, and four filed applications for amparo which were denied. Of those four, one filed an appeal for review, which is pending a decision. The State also reported that, of the 18 agents committed to trial, two filed an application for amparo against the precautionary measure issued against them; of these, one was dismissed and the other granted. Cf. The State’s report on compliance with the recommendations of the Merits Report of September 5, 2016 (evidence file, folios 30501 to 3509), and brief of the State dated October 30, 2017, addressed to the Miguel Agustín Pro Juárez Human Rights [PRODH] Center (evidence file, folios 38182 to 38189). 194 The State did not provide this decision. However, it reported that “to counteract the prescription of the crime of torture established in the criminal laws of the state of Mexico, the PGJ argued, among other matters, that “the judicial authorities have the obligation to exercise control of conventionality when examining a specific case” and that, “as established in the consistent case law of the Inter-American Court, […] the crime of torture […] is not subject to a statute of limitations”; therefore, “if an individual who is probably responsible for the crime of torture in its different forms is identified, the judge of the case would need to determine that the crime is not subject to a statute of limitations and thus examine the merits of the matter.” According to the State, this argument was recognized by the domestic courts and this “made it possible to identify all the officials who could have had some degree of participation in the sexual abuse to which the victims in this case were subjected.” The State’s report on compliance with the recommendations of the Merits Report of September 5, 2016 (evidence file, folios 30516 and 30517). 195