(…) one of the most relevant [anomalies is] that the appearance of the children’s parents before the court has been ignored, and that the respective socioeconomic study submitted to the Court by Social Services has been left out (…) upon receiving the report on the socioeconomic study conducted by the social worker from the Juvenile Legal Assistance Section, the Court ignored its content, which indicated that ‘although the return of the boys to the mother as their caregiver is not an option at this time, it would be appropriate for a new study to be conducted at a later time in order to determine whether there has been a change in the circumstances that compel this decision to temporarily remove her children.’ The decision of the Juvenile Judge of Escuintla flagrantly violates due process and therefore my lawful and inviolable right to a defense.150 92. On February 16, 1999, the Court of Appeals declined to grant the provisional amparo remedy requested by Mr. Tobar.151 Later, on June 1, 1999, the court decided to grant him final and unappealable amparo relief.152 It found that “There is no evidence on the record of Mr. Tobar having filed a motion for review (…) and therefore the lower court’s ruling on the timeliness of the appeal is immaterial.”153 93. The Court maintained that “the court decision stating that Gustavo (…) Tobar (…) has not been a party to the case violates his right to a defense, as he has been prevented from asserting his status as the father of the minor child Osmín (…) in order to gain custody of him.”154 Accordingly, the court suspended the ruling of December 17, 1998 and ordered that Mr. Gustavo Tobar be allowed to intervene as a party to the case.155 94. On July 24, 1999, Judge Mario Peralta of the Juvenile Trial Court of Escuintla recused himself from the case.156 He justified his self-recusal by stating that Mr. Tobar’s petition for a constitutional remedy [recurso de amparo] “used (…) language that tarnishes the honor of (…) [and] casts doubt upon the capacity and honorableness of this judge.”157 95. Mr. Tobar and Mrs. Ramírez appeared before the Jutiapa court in the hearing held on September 24, 1999. They requested that the declaration of abandonment of the Ramírez brothers be set aside.158 They also requested that custody of the boys be returned to their biological parents, stating that this “will allow us to continue with the proceedings to have the boys returned from abroad.”159 The same day, the court ordered the parents to undergo psychological studies.160 96. On March 20, 2000, the Office of the Attorney General filed a report requested by the Court regarding the status of the Ramírez brothers.161 The Office of the Attorney General indicated that the Association Residence provided them with a copy of a report they had prepared that referred to the 150 Annex 26. Pleading of Gustavo Tobar, February 2, 1999. Annex 1.16. 151 Annex 27. Order of the Court of Appeals, February 16, 1999. Annex 1.16. 152 Annex 28. Order of the 12th Division of the Court of Appeals, Petition for Constitutional Remedy 23-99, June 1, 1999. 153 Annex 28. Order of the 12th Division of the Court of Appeals, Petition for Constitutional Remedy 23-99, June 1, 1999. 154 Annex 28. Order of the 12th Division of the Court of Appeals, Petition for Constitutional Remedy 23-99, June 1, 1999. 155 Annex 28. Order of the 12th Division of the Court of Appeals, Petition for Constitutional Remedy 23-99, June 1, 1999. 156 Annex 29. Self-recusal No. 13-99 of Judge Mario Fernando Peralta Castañeda, Judge of the Juvenile Trial Court of Escuintla, July 24, 1999, case file 318-98. Annex 1.19. 157 Annex 29. Self-recusal No. 13-99 of Judge Mario Fernando Peralta Castañeda, Judge of the Juvenile Trial Court of Escuintla, July 24, 1999, case file 318-98. Annex 1.19. 158 Annex 30. Record of hearing, Juvenile Trial Court for the Department of Jutiapa, September 24, 1999, case file 421-99. 159 Annex 30. Record of hearing, Juvenile Trial Court for the Department of Jutiapa, September 24, 1999, case file 421-99. 160 Annex 31. Order, Juvenile Trial Court for the Department of Jutiapa, September 24, 1999, case file 421-99. Annex 1.20. 161 Annex 32. Report No. 51-2000 from the Juvenile Legal Assistance Section, Social Work, March 20, 2000. Annex 2.1. 18