17 50. On March 17, 1998, a lawyer from the Rigoberta Menchú Foundation (Ms. Menchú is the petitioner in this case) presented a brief to the Human Rights Prosecutor reporting that on the 6th of that month, while driving to his home accompanied by another lawyer of the Foundation, he was pursued and intercepted by a vehicle, but, after several diversionary tactics, he was able to lose it. He also indicated that, the following day, he noted that the brake linings of his automobile had been cut.73 On March 23, 1998, the petitioners informed the Commission that the lawyers had been subjected to “acts of harassment” and “intimidation.”74 51. On April 6, 1998, the Trial Court rejected evidence offered by the parties. 75 It also set a date for the trial.76 The Prosecutor, the “querellante adhesiva” and the defense team presented “appeals of revocation” that were resolved on April 16, 1998, by accepting and incorporating into the case additional evidence offered by the parties.77 52. On April 20, 1998, a lawyer for Ms. Menchú “filed” an “appeal of amparo” against the decision of April 16, 1998.78 That same day, the appeal was “not granted” by the Twelfth Chamber of the Court of Appeals, acting as a Court of Amparo,79 a decision that was ratified by the Constitutional Court on April 22, 1998.80 53. The public hearing before the Trial Court began on April 21, 1998,81 after a series of motions, procedures and presentations.82 Cf. Document annexed to the communication of the petitioners of March 23, 1998, addressed to the Commission (evidence file, proceedings before the Commission, fs. 2020 to 2023). 74 Cf. Communication of the petitioners of March 23, 1998, addressed to the Commission (evidence file, proceedings before the Commission, fs. 2007 to 2011). 75 By communication of February 13, 1998, the Special Prosecutor of the PPS offered evidence into the proceedings, as did the defense lawyers (cf. Communication of the Special Prosecutor of the PPS of February 13, 1998 (evidence file, proceedings before the Commission, fs. 4324 to 4370) and briefs of the defense lawyers of February 13, 1998 (evidence file, proceedings before the Commission, fs. 4372 to 4438; 4440 to 4446 and 4448 to 4472). In addition, the decision of the Sentencing Court refers to the evidence presented by the “querellante adhesiva” (cf. Decision of the Sentencing Court of April 6, 1998 (evidence file, proceedings before the Commission, fs. 4485 to 4566)). 76 Cf. Decision of the Sentencing Court of April 6, 1998, supra. 77 Cf. Decision of the Sentencing Court of April 16, 1998 (evidence file, annex 18 to the Merits Report, fs. 249 to 273). 78 Cf. Appeal of amparo presented against the decision of April 16, 1998 of the Sentencing Court, received by the Twelfth Chamber of the Court of Appeals on April 20, 1998 (evidence file, annex 19 to the Merits Report, fs. 275 to 310). The brief notes that the lawyer indicated that she was “representing” Rigoberta Menchú Tum and “asking for her own protection as an attorney.” Among the reasons for the appeal is the understanding that the denial of certain measures of evidence resulted in an infringement of “the right of the defense in the case.” 79 Cf. Twelfth Chamber of the Court of Appeals, acting as a Court of Amparo. Amparo 77-98. Decision of April 20, 1998 (evidence file, annex 20 to the Merits Report, fs. 312 and 313). 80 Cf. Constitutional Court. File 225-98. Decision of April 22, 1998 (evidence file, annex 21 to the Merits Report, fs. 315 and 316. 81 Cf. Communication of the State of April 30, 1998, addressed to the Commission (evidence file, proceedings before the Commission, fs. 1968 to 1970). 82 In addition, information presented by the petitioners to the Commission indicated the following actions. On March 6, 1998, due to an agreement at a public hearing held at the Commission on February 26, representatives of COPREDEH, the Prosecutor of the case and the petitioners met because of the “need to present to the Supreme Court […] a request for specific solutions.” After negotiations, they were scheduled to be received by the President of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court on March 17, 1998. They were, however, not received on that day and were informed that, in the morning of that same day, the President had met with the defense lawyers of the soldiers. On March 11, 1998, the “querellante adhesiva” presented a brief to the Sentencing Court, with petitions regarding the trial. That same day, the President of that Court called the parties to a meeting in which he spoke of the logistical problems concerning the holding of the trial. He alleged that there had been inquiries to the Supreme Court that required resolving issues of infrastructure and asked the parties whether they could defray certain transportation and lodging expenses of a witness, to 73