11 was expanded with the naming of a public defender, 33 who also represented Mr. DA. The same day, the order for the pretrial detention of Messrs. Martínez and DA 34 was issued as well as the order to prosecute.35 37. On August 3, 1995, the Public Prosecutor presented a request to begin the trial and to formalize the case against Messrs. Martínez and DA for the crime of murder. 36 38. On August 21, 1995, the Second Court of the First Instance of Chiquimula ordered the opening of the case.37 Then, on October 25, 1995, the public debate was held, in which witness testimony38 was presented, including that of Messrs. Martínez and DA. 39. On October 26, 1995, the Criminal, Drug Trafficking, and Environmental Crimes Court in the Department of Chiquimula (hereinafter also “PNDA Court” for the Spanish) held both of the accused responsible for seven counts of murder, sentencing Mr. Martínez to death by lethal injection and Mr. Arias to 30 years in prison,39 stating that: [Manuel Martínez Coronado] and [DA] [...] are considered especially dangerous [...], and [...] due to the circumstances of the crime and the setting in which it was committed, the number of victims, the manner in which they were murdered, the underlying motives, and the numerous aggravating factors, this [c]ourt holds that both meet the criteria for the [death] penalty. [...] [However,] whereas Article 18 of the Constitution of Guatemala stipulates that the death penalty cannot be applied to anyone over sixty years of age, [DA] [...] is confirmed to be sixty-five years old at this time, and the [c]ourt is obligated to abide by constitutional provisions first and foremost, the [c]ourt decides to apply Article 18 of the Constitution in favor of [DA] [...] exclusively, as only his personal circumstances warrant it.”40 40. In its judgment, the PNDA Court also held that: given the flagrant contradictions between the statements of the two accused and given the fact that all of the witnesses specified [...] above place [DA] in the home of Manuel Martínez Coronado in the early morning hours, [...the] [c]ourt decides to deny them any probative value. [Therefore,] [b]y virtue of the analysis of the evidence [...] and the fact that all relevant evidence points directly to the two accused [...] as the cause of the violent deaths of [... 7 people], the court considers it sufficiently proven that the same accused are the perpetrators of the [...] crimes [...].41 41. On November 8, 1995, Mr. JARL filed a special motion for appeal on behalf of Messrs. Martínez Coronado and DA against the October 26, 1995, judgment due to substantive defects in the ruling. It alleged a failure to observe the family law in the appointment of a guardian for the minor, who was the only witness to the crimes of which Mr. Martínez Coronado and his co-defendant were accused. A failure of due process is committed whenever said appointment was made by the PNDA Court when the law requires that a family court do so; thus, as the minor’s statement is Cf. Expanded initial statement of Manuel Martínez Coronado on May 19, 1995, before the justice of the peace of Chiquimula (evidence file with the answering brief, annex 5, folios 2072 to 2077). 34 Cf. Pretrial detention order of May 19, 1995, issued by the Second Court of First Instance of Chiquimula (evidence file with the answering brief, annex 6, folios 2078 to 2080). 35 Cf. Order to prosecute of May 19, 1995, issued by the Second Court of First Instance of Chiquimula (evidence file with the answering brief, annex 7, folios 2081 to 2084). 36 Cf. August 2, 1995, request to begin trial and formalize prosecution presented by the Public Prosecutor (evidence file with the answering brief, annex 12, folios 2132 to 2140). On August 3, 1995, the request was presented. 37 Cf. Order to prosecute of August 21, 1995, issued by the Second Court of First Instance of Chiquimula (evidence file with the answering brief, annex 13, folios 2141 to 2146). 38 Cf. Public debate record of October 25, 1995, issued by the Second Court of First Instance of Chiquimula (evidence file with the answering brief, annex 15, folios 2154 to 2201). 39 Cf. Judgment of the Criminal, Drug Trafficking, and Environmental Crimes Court in the Department of Chiquimula on October 26, 1995, supra. 40 Judgment of the Criminal, Drug Trafficking, and Environmental Crimes Court of the Department of Chiquimula on October 26, 1995, supra. 41 Judgment of the Criminal, Drug Trafficking, and Environmental Crimes Court of the Department of Chiquimula on October 26, 1995, supra. 33