Instance. However, it also finds that the Third Court of Appeals of Francisco of Morazán took corrective actions on several occasions, hearing appeals and reversing irregularities in various proceedings.267 This will be assessed together with the overall process in order to determine whether or not these failures played a decisive role in the proceedings. B.1.2.2. Obstacles and threats in the case 171. The Court has confirmed that during the proceedings, two judges stopped hearing the case owing to their presumed partiality and fear. With respect to the first judge, this was due to media reports claiming he had a direct interest in the case related to the death of Carlos Luna López and alleged threats (supra para. 81); regarding the second judge, the case was referred to him on November 30, 2001, and on that same day he decided to revoke the order of imprisonment issued against Jorge Adolfo Chávez Hernández. Nevertheless, on February 5, 2002, he presented a brief before the Civil Court excusing himself from the case, stating that comments had been made that he had been pressured to rule in favor of Mr. Jorge Adolfo Chávez. In addition, he said he feared for his life and believed that José Ángel Rosa, one of the accused, was a dangerous person and that the Supreme Court of Justice did not offer any protection to judges hearing cases (supra para. 83). There is no record that this judge had carried out any other substantive proceeding in the case. 5958), on May 4, 2004 (File of attachments to the State’s response, page 5961),to June 23, 2004, when it issued the respective order (File of attachments to the State’s response, pages 5962 and 5963), contrary to the provisions of Article 105; d) the submission of evidence and its reception by the judges: for example, more than 16 months elapsed between November 5, 1999, when the evidence proceeding was opened (File of attachments to the State’s response, page 6975), and the close of the second evidentiary period, on March 28, 2001 (File of attachments to the State’s response, page 7172),whereas Article 262 of the Code of Criminal Procedure established that the parties have ten days to offer evidence and 30 days for examination (File of attachments to the State’s response, page 4936) and e) the resolution of appeals presented by the parties: for example, more than nine months elapsed between December 12, 2007, when the amparo appeal was filed before the Supreme Court in favor of José Ángel Rosas, the presumed intellectual author (File of attachments to the State’s response, pages 759 to 762) and the respective ruling on September 23, 2008 (File of attachments to the State’s response, pages 6087 to 6092). In this regard, the Court points out that the Magistrates Court issued the order to “execute” on January 26, 2009 (File of attachments to the State’s response, page 6094), after the appellant’s death on June 30, 2008. In addition, more than 28 months passed between the filing of the cassation appeal for Ítalo Iván Lemus, on August 23, 2010 (File of attachments to the State’s response, pages 6564 and 6565) and its resolution on January 10, 2013 (File of attachments to the State’s response, page 9083). Similarly, two months elapsed between December 4, 2001,the date on which the State filed an application for reconsideration and subsidiary appeal against the decision to revoke the remand order issued for Jorge Chávez as intellectual author (File of attachments to the State’s response, page 5771) and February 4, 2002 (File of attachments to the State’s response, page 5773), the when the ruling was made on the admissibility of the appeal, in contravention of Article 105 of the Code of Criminal Procedure mentioned above (File of attachments to the State’s response, page 4928). 266 For example, the failure to examine some substantial evidence requested by the parties or even the Prosecutor, specifically: the Catacamas Civil Judge failed to investigate telephone calls made between those presumed responsible. It is worth mentioning that on March 9, 2001, Prosecutor Gia Firenze Leoni asked the Catacamas Magistrate to release communications of the Honduran Telecommunications Company to investigate the telephone number of José Ángel Rosa in order to make a report on the conversations he had with the accused Oscar Aurelio Rodríguez. However, the files contain no record of the outcome of this request. (Judicial file 1128/98: File of attachments to the brief of pleadings and motions, page 4462). 267 Cf. Judgment issued by the Third Court of Appeals of Tegucigalpa in file No. 30-2002 on March 21, 2002, hearing an appeal against the decision revoking the commitment order issued for Jorge Adolfo Chávez Hernández. This judgment stated that “the case [of] May 19, 1998, [remained] at the preliminary stage for four years, which exceed[ed] all legal limits, since at the time they [were] involved in a process which as a rule should be expeditious, thereby providing a prompt response to the population’s demand for justice; it is appropriate that once the case is returned to the Examining Judge, it proceeds in accordance with the provisions of Article 5 of the Transition Law […] and that given the many irregularities committed in the processing of this case, […] it is appropriate to inform the Inspectorate-General of the Courts of this matter for the corresponding purposes.” In this regard, there is no evidence in the file to show that this act has been investigated and sanctioned (File of attachments to the State’s response, pages 5791 to 5799). 52