The Attorney General’s Office of Mexico City (FGJCDMX) executed 68 court orders against 64 men and four women for their probable participation in the crime of robbery in its different forms.
Elements of the Investigative Police (PDI) of the capital’s Prosecutor’s Office carried out 68 judicial orders during the first half of September, 40 of them arrest warrants and 28 re-arrest warrants, the Attorney General’s Office reported in a statement.
You might be interested in: Victory in Cuauhtémoc is irreversible: Rojo de la Vega celebrates the Regional Court’s ruling
The arrested or re-arrested persons, 64 men and four women, accused of their probable participation in the crime of robbery in different forms such as qualified robbery, business robbery with violence, aggravated robbery in gangs with violence, and attempted robbery, were placed at the disposal of different control judges.
Twenty-seven men and four women were located in different municipalities of Mexico City, who were transferred to different men’s penitentiary centers in the capital and to the Santa Martha Acatitla Women’s Social Reintegration Center, respectively.
Likewise, several court orders were served inside the Men’s Preventive Prisons in the country’s capital, 16 in the North, seven in the South, six in the East, and two more in the Penitentiary.
You might be interested in: Fall of two trees suspends service on Metro line B in Mexico City
In addition, two individuals were located in Nezahualcóyotl, State of Mexico; while in the municipalities of Guadalajara, Jalisco; Monterrey, Nuevo León; Boca del Río, Veracruz; and Tijuana, Baja California, one in each state, whose judicial orders were carried out with a collaboration letter from ministerial authorities of each entity and, after a medical certification and the Delivery-Reception Act protocol, they were transferred to the capital to be admitted to the prisons.
The 68 people were placed at the disposal of the judicial authorities who requested them, several of them to determine their legal status for their participation in the aforementioned crime, while others were for failing to comply with their procedural obligations that would allow them to face their trial or sentence in freedom.
EAM
Related
2024-09-20 19:34:23