law”. Therefore, the Court has indicated that the principle of presumption of innocence constitutes a foundation of judicial guarantees.153 The Court has also noted that the principle of the presumption of innocence implies that judges should not start a proceeding with a preconceived idea that the accused has committed the crime as charged.154 In turn, it requires that the State should not convict an individual informally or emit an opinion in public that contributes to forming public opinion, while the criminal responsibility of that individual has not been proved.155 110. With respect to the first question about the alleged statements made by Judge H.S.H., it is proven that in the record of the hearing before the Fourth Criminal Sentencing Court for Drug Trafficking and Crimes against the Environment of April 22, 1996, that the defense attorney R.E.Q.D. submitted an oral recusal appeal against Judge H.S.H., alleging that said judge stated that "he did not care about the results of the expert testimony, since for him the only thing that mattered was the identification that the witness had made of the defendants".156 The appeal was filed on the grounds that these alleged assertions called into question his impartiality and showed prior judgement with respect to the case. Faced with this challenge, the president of the Criminal Sentencing Court denied the grounds for the challenge, pursuant to the provisions of article 131 of the Law of the Judiciary.157 The court then requested the Supreme Court of Justice to appoint a third member to rule on the matter,158 in accordance with article 129 of the same law.159 Judge M.A.S.M. was appointed to hear the challenge, and considered that, in his opinion, there was insufficient evidence. 111. In light of the foregoing, this Court considers that the alleged lack of subjective impartiality of said judge due to the violation of the principle of presumption of innocence and impartiality has already been evaluated and resolved in the domestic jurisdiction, and the appeal was dismissed on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence for the challenge to succeed. No new elements were presented before this Court to depart from the criterion established by the national judge. Therefore, the Court concludes on this point that the principles of presumption of innocence and of impartial tribunal have not been violated. 112. With regard to the second question concerning the dual role of the judge in the criminal proceeding, it is a proven fact that Mr. H.S.H. participated as a judge in the investigation stage and was subsequently president of the sentencing court. 113. The Guatemalan Code of Criminal Procedure in force at the time of the facts contemplated in its articles 309 and following, the functions of the control judge, among which was that, at the request Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Merits. Judgment of November 12, 1997, para. 77, and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 387. 154 Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 220, para. 184, and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 387. 155 Case of Lori Berenson Mejía v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2004. Series C No. 119, para. 160, and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 388. 156 Cf. Record of the debate before the Fourth Criminal Sentencing Court for Drug Trafficking and Crimes against the Environment, April 22, 1996 (evidence file, folio 62). 157 Judicial Branch Act, Article 131: "Challenge in collegiate courts. When members of collegiate tribunals are challenged, the person challenged shall immediately state in the case file whether he or she recognizes or denies the grounds for the challenge. The court, when properly constituted, shall process the matter in the appropriate manner. No appeal shall be allowed against the decision as well as in the case provided for in article 127". Available at: https://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/es/gt/gt004es.pdf. 158 Cf. Record of the hearing before the Fourth Court of Criminal Sentencing for Drug Trafficking and Crimes against the Environment, April 22, 1996 (evidence file, folio 62). 159 Judicial Branch Act, Article 129: "Processing of the challenge. If the judge considers that the grounds are not true or that there are no grounds for recusal, he shall so state in a reasoned decision, and in the first case he shall continue to hear the case without further proceedings, but in the case of recusal he shall refer the proceedings to the higher court, which shall process and resolve them as an incident". Available at: https://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/es/gt/gt004es.pdf. 153 33