12 invalid, it was argued that the decision should be reversed and the accused should be acquitted due to a lack of evidence.42 This motion was declared inadmissible on May 8, 1996, by the Sixth Division of the Court of Appeals,43 as the appointment of the guardian for the minor was carried out in accordance with Article 213 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 44 “exclusively and solely for representation in legal proceedings derived from a criminal trial.” 42. On June 4, 1996, the attorney RARM submitted a cassation remedy without formalities against the May 8, 1996, judgment.45 He later presented the grounds for that remedy in his August 5, 1996, brief,46 in which he argued that the right to defense of Mr. Martínez Coronado was violated by virtue of the fact that he and his co-accused shared the same defense counsel, arguing that: the principle of defense was violated through the conflict of interest between the accused [derived from] Article 12 of the Constitution [...] [and] specifically, the provisions of Article 95 of the [C]ode of Criminal Procedure [...] [because] the trial court and the division that heard the appeal never once commented on these issues; despite this, the Criminal, Drug Trafficking, and Environmental Crimes Court in Chiquimula, in its trial order that prompted this motion, established that blatant contradictions existed between the two accused, which contributed to the decision.47 43. that: The Supreme Court of Justice found that remedy to lack merit on August 27, 1996, stating [...] there was [no] violation of a constitutional or legal provision that required that the decision be reversed and duly corrected, given that in the appellant's sentencing the rights and guarantees set forth in the Constitution of the Republic of Guatemala and the treaties ratified by the State were observed, especially in regard to the right to defense and the principle of due process, which were fully respected, and even though it is true that both of the accused had the same counsel, it is also true that a reading of their respective statements shows that there was no obvious incompatibility between them that would have made it impossible to defend one without harming the other.48 44. On September 24, 1996, Mr. Martínez Coronado presented a remedy of amparo before the Constitutional Court, constituted as an amparo court, on the basis of the following: an erroneous application of the law and improper interpretation of the same, as the accused were appointed a common public defender despite the conflict of interest between them, an incompatibility that was not mentioned by the Judge or the Public Prosecutor.49 Cf. Special Motion for Appeal presented by attorney JARL for Manuel Martínez Coronado and DA (evidence file with the Merits Report, annex 2, folios 27 to 34, and ESAP annexes, annex 2, folios 989 to 991). Note: It does not include the date of submission of the motion, but the parties indicated that it was submitted on November 8, 1995. 43 Cf. Judgment issued by the Sixth Division of the Court of Appeals in the city of Zacapa on May 8, 1996 (evidence file with the Merits Report, annex 4, folios 38 to 47; ESAP annexes, annex 4, folios 998 to 1008, and annexes with the answering brief, annex 17, folios 2236 to 2259). 44 Code of Criminal Procedure, supra. “Article 213. (Statements by minors and incapacitated individuals). Minors under age 14 and individuals who did not understand the meaning of the right to abstain due to deficient mental faculties or immaturity shall require a decision by their legal representative or, if applicable, a guardian appointed for this purpose.” 45 Cf. Cassation remedy without formalities presented on June 4, 1996, by attorney RARM for Manuel Martínez Coronado (evidence file with the Merits Report, annex 5, folios 48 to 53, and ESAP annexes, annex 5, folios 1009 to 1014). 46 Cf. Brief with grounds for cassation remedy filed by RARM before the Supreme Court of Justice on August 5, 1996 (evidence file with the Merits Report, annex 6, folios 54 to 61, and ESAP annexes, annex 6, folios 1016 to 1022). Furthermore, this brief argued that there was a “violation of due process regarding the development and assessment of evidence [...]” due to the improper appointment of the guardian of the minor witness in the trial. It is also worth noting that a new defense counsel has begun work and introduced for the first time the allegation of joint defense (February 18, 1998, brief of RARM, IACHR procedural file, folios 822 to 831). 47 Brief on the grounds of the cassation remedy filed by RARM before the Supreme Court of Justice on August 5, 1996, supra. 48 Cassation remedy judgment issued by the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court of Justice on August 27, 1996 (evidence file with the Merits Report, annex 7, folios 62 to 75). 49 The remedy of amparo also argued that the appointment of the guardian for the minor who rendered a statement that was “decisive for issuing a judgment” failed to meet the legal requirements. It also argued that “the accused was 42