had told him that the payment was “for a job that [Orlando Martínez] had done” under the orders of “Salomón Martínez, someone called Sosa, one they called ‘Muñecón,’ and a Facussé.”199 119. On March 14, 2003, Eldyn Escaleras’s legal representative asked the court to order the arrest of Oscar Sosa for his participation as one of the masterminds behind Carlos Escaleras’s death.200 She that “although the judge did not order an exhaustive investigation on an ex officio basis,” there were numerous statements, including reports from the DGIC, indicating the participation of Oscar Sosa as the mastermind behind the death of Carlos Escaleras.”201 She underscored the importance of the notebook found at his home, which contained information on Carlos Escaleras’s murder. She maintained that “to date (…) the aforesaid notebook has not been presented as evidence at trial.”202 That motion was rejected by the court and appealed on May 26, 2003.203 120. On March 19, 2003, the court resent the magistrate’s court its request of April 2001 regarding the conveyance of the notebook found in Oscar Sosa’s home.204 121. On August 8, 2003, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the amparo filing presented by Miguel Facussé and Irene de Jesús Castro (see para. 116 above) and returned the proceedings to the trial judge in Tocoa. 205 It ruled that the defendants’ right to the presumption of innocence had been respected and that an amparo remedy could not rule on such particular situations as the admissibility of a dismissal from the proceedings. 206 It said that amparo remedies applied when a fundamental right had been violated, which was not the situation in the case at hand.207 122. On October 14, 2003, Miguel Facussé and Irene de Jesús Castro appeared before the court to give their statements.208 That same day the court admitted their documents and ordered the taking of their statements. Mr. Facussé gave his statement, in which he denied having been involved in the death of Carlos Escaleras.209 123. That same day, the First-Instance Court issued a resolution dismissing Miguel Facussé and Irene de Jesús Castro from the proceedings. 210 The two men’s defense attorney then asked the court to serve 199 Annex 88. Statement of Arnulfo Romero Andrade, dated November 12, 2002, case file of trial brought against the masterminds behind the crime, p. 533, annexed to the initial petition of January 14, 2002. 200 Annex 89. Filing by defense attorney Claudia González, dated March 14, 2003, Annex 4 to the petitioners’ communication of April 24, 2004. 201 Annex 89. Filing by defense attorney Claudia González, dated March 14, 2003, Annex 4 to the petitioners’ communication of April 24, 2004. 202 Annex 89. Filing by defense attorney Claudia González, dated March 14, 2003, Annex 4 to the petitioners’ communication of April 24, 2004. 203 Annex 90. Appearance before the Court of Appeal, dated May 26, 2003, annexed to the petitioners’ communication of September 29, 2004. 204 Annex 91. Court document, dated March 19, 2003, Annex 4 to the petitioners’ communication of April 24, 2004. Annex 92. Resolution of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated August 8, 2003, Annex 1 to the petitioners’ communication of April 24, 2004. 205 206 Annex 92. Resolution of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated August 8, 2003, Annex 1 to the petitioners’ communication of April 24, 2004. 207 Annex 92. Resolution of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, dated August 8, 2003, Annex 1 to the petitioners’ communication of April 24, 2004. 208 Annex 93. Voluntary appearance of Miguel Facussé and Irene de Jesús Castro, dated October 14, 2003, Annex 1 to the petitioners’ communication of April 24, 2004. 209 Annex 94. Statement of Miguel Facussé, dated October 14, 2003, Annex 1 to the petitioners’ communication of April 24, 2004. 210 Annex 95. Court document, dated October 14, 2003, Annex 1 to the petitioners’ communication of April 24, 2004. 24