- 105 - diligence, because it failed to process the items of evidence provided by the women victims in this case adequately, which meant that it failed to follow logical lines of investigation that could have resulted from this evidence. The Court has no information indicating that, at the present time, any investigation is open to determine the possible responsibility of federal agents. Although the State alleges that it has charged all the agents identified by the SCJN who took part in the transfers, the Court notes that the acts of sexual violence also occurred during the initial arrest and at the time of the handover, acts in which federal agents took part (supra paras. 75 to 105). Consequently, the Court considers that it is not sufficient that the State has investigated those persons listed by the SCJN as probably responsible owing to their participation in the transfers of the women; rather the State should have following the logical lines of investigation concerning the participation of federal agents in the crimes committed, especially in light of the significant evidence indicated. 294. Regarding the arguments concerning the failure to investigate the presumed responsibility based on the chain of command, the Court notes that Article 3 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture establishes that “[a] public servant or employee who acting in that capacity orders, instigates or induces the use of torture, or who directly commits it or who, being able to prevent it, fails to do so” shall be held guilty of this crime. This means that, as indicated in the expert opinion of Susana SáCouto, “in cases of torture the obligation to investigate under the [American Convention] supplemented by the [Inter-American Convention against Torture] extends not only to the direct perpetrator but also to the State officials who order, instigate or incite its perpetration, or who, being in a position to prevent it, fail to do so.”400 On this point, it should be recalled that it is not incumbent on the Court to analyze the presumptions concerning the perpetrators examined during the investigation into the facts and, thus, to determine individual responsibilities; that is the task of the domestic criminal courts. Rather, the Court must evaluate the acts or omissions of State agents, based on the evidence presented by the parties,401 and verify whether, in the course of the measures taken in the domestic sphere, the State’s international obligations arising from Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention were violated.402 To this end, the Court will now analyze whether, in this case, there is any evidence that the civil authorities403 who planned and supervised the operations ordered, instigated or induced the use of torture or who, being able to prevent it, failed to do so,404 and whether that Expert opinion of Susana SáCouto (evidence file, folio 37119). The UN Committee against Torture indicated the same, when stating that it was “a matter of urgency that each State party should [take] measures to investigate, […] with particular attention to the legal responsibility of both the direct perpetrators and officials in the chain of command.” UN Committee against Torture, General Comment No. 2, January 24, 2008, Doc. UN CAT/C/GC/2, para. 7. 400 Cf. Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, para. 87, and Case of Favela Nova Brasília v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 16, 2017. Series C No. 333, para. 180. 401 Cf. Case of Nogueira de Carvalho et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary objections and Merits. Judgment of November 28, 2006. Series C No. 161, para. 80, and Case of Coc Max et al. (Xamán Massacre) v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 22, 2018. Series C No. 356, para. 81. 402 In this regard, the Committee against Torture has indicated that “those exercising superior authority - including public officials - cannot […] escape criminal responsibility for torture or ill-treatment committed by subordinates where they knew or should have known that such impermissible conduct was occurring, or was likely to occur, and they failed to take reasonable and necessary preventive measures.” UN Committee against Torture, General Comment No. 2, January 24, 2008, CAT/C/GC/2, para. 26. See, similarly: UN, Committee against Torture, Hajrizi Dzemajl et al. v. Yugoslavia, December 2, 2002, Doc. UN CAT/C/29/D/161/2000, para. 9.2, and Besim Osmani v. Republic of Serbia, May 25, 2009, Doc. UN CAT/C/42/D/261/2005, para. 10.5. 403 According to customary international law the responsibility of those who, being able to prevent torture, failed to do so, requires proving: (1) the existence of a superior-subordinate relationship between the accused and the perpetrator of the crime (that is, that the individual had the material capacity to prevent or to punish the perpetration of a crime); (2) that the superior knew or had reason to know that the subordinate was about to perpetrate such crimes or had already 404