109. In connection with the inspection, that same day judge Francisco Sánchez told a radio station that “the team representing (…) Mr. Carlos Escaleras was [not] interested in exploring that.”177 He said that “we were able to see that no check was in fact issued.”178 He added that “clearly there is nothing to indicate that a check was issued to Salomón Martínez on or around that date.”179 He maintained that “clearly that check did not exist, clearly it is not incriminating evidence against anyone in particular (…) it is something without juridical value.”180 110. On August 22, 2001, the National Coordinating Committee against Impunity (Conacim) reported the irregular actions of Judge Francisco Sánchez in the case to the President of the Supreme Court. 181 The Committee stated that the judge expressed private opinions in the media “clearly aligning himself with the defendants (…) and forgetting his position of impartiality.”182 The complaint also noted its concern at the delay in conducting the judicial inspection at the premises of the Lexus company.183 111. On August 16, 2001, Eldyn Escaleras stated that he disputed Judge Francisco Sánchez’s contention, expressed to the media, that the check had no legal value. 184 He claimed that no technical or scientific procedure had been carried out to establish that it was lacking in juridical value. 185 He maintained that at a recent press conference, Mario Gutiérrez, a former DGIC officer, had said that on July 9, 2001, he was pressured to abandon the investigation of Carlos Escaleras’s case and subsequently dismissed after he found evidence of the involvement of Miguel Facussé and Salomón Martínez. 186 He maintained that the Director of the DGIC had told Mario Gutiérrez that he had found the original check in clearing at the Central Bank and that he had placed it in a safe at the DGIC.187 112. That same day, Santos Figueroa Hernández, a colleague of Carlos Escaleras, said that Mario Gutiérrez had told him he was dismissed from the DGIC “for finding rational evidence in the death of Carlos Escaleras, that there was evidence against Miguel Facussé and Salomón Martínez, and that he spoke of Oscar 177 Annex 78. Statement of Francisco Sánchez made to Radio Estéreo Bonita, dated August 1, 2001, Annex 5 to the petitioners’ submission of August 8, 2005. 178 Annex 78. Statement of Francisco Sánchez made to Radio Estéreo Bonita, dated August 1, 2001, Annex 5 to the petitioners’ submission of August 8, 2005. 179 Annex 78. Statement of Francisco Sánchez made to Radio Estéreo Bonita, dated August 1, 2001, Annex 5 to the petitioners’ submission of August 8, 2005. 180 Annex 78. Statement of Francisco Sánchez made to Radio Estéreo Bonita, dated August 1, 2001, Annex 5 to the petitioners’ submission of August 8, 2005. 181 Annex 79. Complaint presented by the National Coordinating Committee against Impunity (Conacim), dated August 22, 2001, Annex 6 to the petitioners’ submission of August 8, 2005. 182 Annex 79. Complaint presented by the National Coordinating Committee against Impunity (Conacim), dated August 22, 2001, Annex 6 to the petitioners’ submission of August 8, 2005. 183 Annex 79. Complaint presented by the National Coordinating Committee against Impunity (Conacim), dated August 22, 2001, Annex 6 to the petitioners’ submission of August 8, 2005. 184 Annex 80. Statement of Eldyn Escaleras, dated August 16, 2001, judicial case file, Vol. II, pp. 498, annexed to the initial petition of January 14, 2002. 185 Annex 80. Statement of Eldyn Escaleras, dated August 16, 2001, judicial case file, Vol. II, pp. 498, annexed to the initial petition of January 14, 2002. 186 Annex 80. Statement of Eldyn Escaleras, dated August 16, 2001, judicial case file, Vol. II, pp. 498, annexed to the initial petition of January 14, 2002. 187 Annex 80. Statement of Eldyn Escaleras, dated August 16, 2001, judicial case file, Vol. II, pp. 498, annexed to the initial petition of January 14, 2002. 22