interim judge.12 The Commission observes that the State did not provide documentation on investigative steps taken during that time. 26. The petitioner reported that in June 2001, another Investigation Judge on Property of Ahuachapán took over the case. It indicated that an inspection was conducted of the location of the facts and Mr. Castillo was summonsed to appear before the court and provide his statement. The petitioner alleged that the President Magistrate at the time of the Third Western Section, one of Mr. Castillo’s “godfathers and protectors,” asked the judge to drop the investigation. It stated that because of this, the judge did not execute the summons for Mr. Castillo.13 This information was not disputed by the State. 27. The Commission notes that this judge requested to recuse himself from handling this process. This was because Mr. Aguirre was working in the same court that was hearing the matter. On May 28, 2002, the Chamber of the Third Western District ruled to grant the recusal.14 28. The IACHR observes that the petitioner reported that the process remained open and no court was designated until the middle of 2003. It indicated that the process was remitted to the First Trial Court Judge of Atiquizaya.15 The State indicated that on October 2 of that year, the judge asked to recuse himself from handling the process.16 The IACHR notes that the judge indicated that his recusal was based on the fact that he had "had a labor relationship" with Mr. Aguirre.17 On October 7, 2003, the Chamber of the Third Western District denied the request. The Chamber found that the grounds presented "were not sufficient to conclude that he could be suspected of partiality" and ordered the processing of the case to continue.18 The petitioner indicated that the judge did not take any investigative steps during that time.19 The State did not dispute this information. 29. On May 19, 2004, the First Trial Judge of Atiquizaya issued a ruling provisionally dismissing the three charges against Mr. Castillo. The ruling said his participation in the facts have not been proven, nor his relationship to the injuries caused to Mr. Aguirre. The judge said his decision was based on the fact that "as regards the corpus delicti and criminal participation in the offenses (…) no evidence was received, not even a formal criminal complaint, confiscation of a weapon, testimonial evidence, or direct implication of any liability in this regard, other than the word of the victim, Mr. Aguirre.” He added that "the body of evidence contains no indication of witnesses or references corroborating in the least what Mr. Aguirre has said.”20 30. On May 28, 2004, the Public Prosecutor appealed the ruling to dismiss. It noted that the forensic analysis conducted by the National Civil Police determined that the explosive device was a grenade and that "it exploded from inside to outside the vehicle.” It argued that this, plus the fact that Castillo had a shotgun and shotgun shells in his vehicle, strengthened the hypothesis that this was not an assassination attempt and that no one had thrown a grenade at the vehicle. On the contrary, it argued that the grenade was inside the vehicle and that it belonged to Mr. Castillo.21 31. On July 20, 2004, the Chamber of the Third Western District denied the appeal and upheld the dismissal of the case. The Chamber confirmed that during the process, two hypotheses were established about what had happened: i) that it was an assassination attempt against the persons who were in the vehicle and the explosive device was thrown from outside; and ii) that the explosive device was inside the vehicle owned by Mr. Castillo. Communication from the petitioner of November 13, 2015. Communication of the petitioner, July 28, 2005. Communication from the petitioner of November 13, 2015. 14 Resolution of the Chamber of the Third Western District, Recusal APN 32/02, May 28, 2002. Annex 3 to the communication from the State of January 10, 2019. 15 Communication from the petitioner of November 13, 2015. 16 Communication from the State of January 10, 2019. 17 Resolution of the Chamber of the Third Western District, Recusal APN 36/03, October 7, 2003. Annex 3 to the communication from the State of January 10, 2019. 18 Resolution of the Chamber of the Third Western District, Recusal APN 36/03, October 7, 2003. Annex 3 to the communication from the State of January 10, 2019. 19 Communication from the petitioner of November 13, 2015. 20 Resolution 34/03 of the First Trial Court of Atiquizaya, May 19, 2004. Annex 1 to the communication from the State of January 10, 2019. 21 Resolution of the Chamber of the Third Western District, July 20, 2004. Annex 1 to the communication from the petitioner of July 28, 2005. 12 13 5