3  There w as obvious intent on the part of the judges to obstruct access to remedies that w ould make it possible to pursue investigations regarding the crime. For example, 1) judicial officials prevented Mrs. Acosta’ s representative from meeting a formal requirement for submitting an appeal against the ruling that ordered the acquittal of the alleged masterminds of the murder; 2) All the appeals filed by the petitioners or the Office of the Attorney General seeking a declaration of the invalidity of the case due to the alleged irregularities w ere rejected or circumvented by the authorities through unfounded rulings based on grounds that w ere in violation of procedural law and/or erroneous. 8. The petitioners allege that these irregularities meant that the alleged masterminds and one of the alleged perpet rators of the crime w ere acquitted and that the appeal filed against that decision w as rejected improperly on the basis of procedural issues. For this reason, they point out that partial immunity for the crime has been achieved even though tw o perpetrators w ere convicted of the murder of Mr. García Valle. 9. With respect to those w ho w ere convicted, the petitioners report that on November 21, 2003 a jury trial found Iván Arguello Rivera and Wilberth José Ochoa Maradiaga guilty of the crime of murder and on April 21, 2004 the District Court for Civil and Criminal Matters of Bluefields sentenced them to 20 years in prison for having committed the crime of murder against Francisco José García Valle. Subsequently, the Criminal Chamber of the Court of Appeals, in a decision dated November 29, 2004, increased their sentence to 23 years in prison. With respect to these convictions, the petitioners recognize that the Nicaraguan justice system “ w orked appropriately.” 10. Regarding the other alleged participants in the crime, the petitioners report that on May 13, 2002 the Criminal District Judge of Bluefields definitively acquitted those w ho, according to the petitioners, w ere the masterminds5 and one of the perpetrators of the murder. They report that Mrs. Acosta – as the accusing party and through her legal representative – filed an appeal that w as declared void on June 3, 2002. They point out that judicial officials prevented Mrs. Acosta’ s legal representative from meeting a procedural requirement ordered by the judge (“ submit the corresponding document to attest to all actions taken” ) and that the calculation of the period on the basis of w hich the appeal w as declared void w as incorrect. 11. The petitioners maintain that since that time they have pursued various judicial remedies seeking to have w hat w as done in judicial file 110 -02 declared null. They argue that some of these remedies w ere rejected by the courts and others w ere simply not processed. They allege that the Criminal Chamber of the Court of Appeals, in a decision dated November 29, 2004, rejected the arguments for nullification put forw ard by Mrs. Acosta and ruled that the decision to acquit w as res judicata. The petitioners filed a special cassation appeal against that decision w ith the Supreme Court of Justice. It w as declared inadmissible in a ruling dated December 19, 2006 because the decision to acquit had not been appealed at the proper procedural time and w as, therefore, res judicata. 12. They also report that Mrs. Acosta w as prosecuted for the crime of concealing the murder of her ow n husband. They maintain that the judge in the case initiated investigative action because one of the alleged masterminds of the crime accused her of concealing the crime in his signed statement. They allege that no law yer w as off icially appointed to represent her – despite the fact that the request to have her ow n representative intervene in the proceeding had been rejected. They allege that an arrest w arrant w as issued against her and that the judge in the case, before handing dow n his decision, told the national media that Mrs. Acosta had concealed the murder of 5 The petitioners allege that the masterminds of the murder of Mr. García Valle w ere tw o individuals involved in a land dispute w ith the indigenous communities being advised by Mrs. Acosta, that the criminal plot had been directed against her, and since she w as not there at the time of the murder, her husband w as executed instead. 3