41 Patzán and Francisco Ixcoy López and rectified the proceeding. However, it did not refer to facts that had been brought to light when the case had been opened for evidence, and continued to consider the matter as if it related to ordinary criminal activities. Consequently, on July 7, 1995, the private complainant filed a petition for clarification of certain points and expansion and, on July 14, 1995, the Attorney General’s office took steps to ensure that this petition was declared admissible.46 76(45) On May 19, 1995, the Fifth Criminal Court of First Instance, “owing to a procedural element and considering [it] admissible,” revoked the pre-trial detention order (supra para. 76(44)) issued against Jesús Cuc Churunel, Francisco Ixcoy López and Tomás Pérez Pérez for allegedly committing the crime of attempted murder.47 76(46) On August 9, 1995, the Fifth Criminal Court of First Instance declared the petition for clarification and expansion filed by the private complainant inadmissible (supra para. 76(44)).48 76(47) On August 16, 1995, the private complainant filed an appeal before the Fifth Criminal Court of First Instance against the decision of May 18, 1995 (supra para. 76(44)). On August 29, 1995, this court admitted the appeal. On September 11, 1995, the Attorney General’s office endorsed the appeal.49 76(48) On October 16, 1995, the Tenth Chamber of the Court of Appeal decided this appeal, and “validated and retained the legal effects of the notifications, the hearings of the parties to the proceedings, and the procedure of receiving all the evidence collected during the probative stage”; it revoked the part of the contested order referring to the renewal of the pre-trial detention order against Marcelino Tuy Taniel, Nazario Tuy Taniel, Tomás Pérez Pérez, Jesús Cuc Churunel and Francisco Ixcoy López for the crime of injuries, which had been amended to the crime of attempted murder; in the contested order, it revoked the justiciable facts formulated against these amendments; it ordered the judge a quo to restore the procedural measures according to law,50 and referred the case to the First Criminal Court of First Instance. 76(49) On January 24, 1996, the judge a quo of the First Criminal Court of First Instance, instead of executing the decisions of the Tenth Chamber of the Court of Appeal concerning the renewal of the pre-trial detention order (supra para. 76(48)), notified an order requiring additional steps to taken and did not grant further hearings to the parties so that they could submit evidence relating to the new classification of the crime. On January 26 and 31, 1996, the Attorney General’s office and the private complainant, respectively, filed appeals against the decision of January 24, 1996. Accordingly, on April 15, 1996, the Tenth Chamber of the Court 46 Cf. copy of the domestic judicial file of the Carpio case (file of appendixes to the requests and arguments brief, appendix 1, Piece XVII). 47 Cf. copy of the domestic judicial file of the Carpio case (file of appendixes to the requests and arguments brief, appendix 1, Piece XVII). 48 Cf. copy of the domestic judicial file of the Carpio case (file of appendixes to the requests and arguments brief, appendix 1, Piece XVII). 49 Cf. copy of the domestic judicial file of the Carpio case (file of appendixes to the requests and arguments brief, appendix 1, Piece XVII). 50 Cf. copy of the domestic judicial file of the Carpio case (file of appendixes to the requests and arguments brief, appendix 1, Piece XVIII).