- 55 - However, he filed an appeal and, subsequently, filed an application for amparo, under which an order was issued to amend the judgment,208 and this resulted in the final judgment being an acquittal, based on the lack of credibility of the identification made by Ana María Ana María Velasco Rodríguez. Specifically, that court indicated that the statement made by Ana María Velasco Rodríguez recognizing her assailant was: Inadmissible because it conflicted with her initial statements […] to which preponderant probative value is accorded because they were made with the proper immediacy and in which the passive subject categorically stated that she was unable to see the face of her assailants, […] because she could only see the police agents who helped her […] and, subsequently, she affirms that she did see the face of the accused; when she was shown his photograph, she indicated him decisively, without equivocation. Therefore, these inconsistencies detract from the convictive value of the accusation […] and even though she has persisted in indicating him […] there is no duly substantiated justification for the change she made in her initial version.209 C.4 Preliminary inquiry at the federal level before the FEVIM 146. On May 15, 2006, the Special Prosecutor for Crimes involving Acts of Violence against Women (FEVIM)210 opened preliminary inquiry AP/FEVIM/003/05-2006 at the federal level for the probable perpetration of various offenses against women detainees. 211 Subsequently, on May 16, 2006, the Center Prodh filed a formal complaint before the FEVIM for sexual abuse and human rights violations committed in the context of the operations of May 3 and 4, 2006, on behalf of Claudia Hernández Martínez, Suhelen Gabriela Cuevas Jaramillo, Mariana Selvas Gómez, Yolanda Muñoz Diosdada, Bárbara Italia Méndez Moreno and two more women. This complaint was expanded on May 26, 2006, to include Ana María Velasco Rodríguez and three women who do not form part of this case.212 Cf. Ruling of February 9, 2009, of the First collegiate Criminal Court of the Second Circuit domiciled in the state of Mexico (evidence file, folios 23276 and 23277). 208 Thus, the court considered that, “several inconsistencies are noted in the content of the offended party’s statements, such as that, when testifying before the investigating authority on May 4 […], she had the opportunity to inform the investigating authority of the sexual abuse […] but, nevertheless, she decided not to do so; it was only on May 5 […] that she stated that, on May 3 […], during the transfer several police agents had demanded that she perform oral sex and others had groped her. […] However, she did not identify the agent she now accuses […] despite only two days having passed since the events took place; therefore, the events were still very recent and she could recount them in detail, but she did not do so; and this was repeated when she came forward […] on May 12 […] and stated that […] she did not know to which police force the agents she complained about belonged and she could not see the faces of those who forced her to perform oral sex […], and this statement clearly proves that the passive party cannot identify her assailants […]; that although it is true that […], on May 25 […], she stated that while she was being sexual abused she remained with her eyes closed and […] [then] was able to open her eyes and could see the two police agents who helped her and can recognize them, at no time did she state that she had seen her assailant; and it was only on June 13 […], when making a written statement and having seen the photographs of the [state] police agents […] that she recognized the active party, without equivocation as the person who forced her to perform oral sex.” Judgment of the Superior Court of Justice of the state of Mexico, Second Unitary Criminal Chamber of Toluca, of February 18, 2009 (evidence file, folios 41479 to 41481). 209 Currently, this office is entitled the Special Prosecutor for Violent Crimes against Women and Human Trafficking (FEVIMTRA). 210 Cf. Order to constitute the First Criminal Trial Court in Toluca, Mexico of October 15, 2014 (evidence file, folio 1638); Order on the constitutional time limit issued by the First Criminal Trial Court in Toluca, Mexico of October 18, 2014 (evidence file, folio 2486); Order on the constitutional time limit issued by the First Criminal Trial Court in Toluca, Mexico of October 21, 2014 (evidence file, folio 3486), and Order on the constitutional time limit issued by the First Criminal Trial Court in Toluca, Mexico of October 27, 2014 (evidence file, folio 4387). 211 Cf. Complaints filed by the Center Prodh before the FEVIM on May 16 and 26, 2006, (evidence file, folios 8529, 8530 and 8536). 212