7 to acquit. The appeal w as admitted on May 17 and the judge ordered “ that the appellant submit to the clerk’ s office the corresponding document to attest to all actions taken” , that is to say, give sheets of w hite paper needed to photocopy the court case file. The file before the IACHR indicates that on May 22, 2002, Mrs. Acosta’ s representative filed an appeal for amendment against this ruling, 9 and attempt to deliver $200 cordobas for photocopy costs. How ever, the court employee did not accept the money claiming that she w as “ not authorized to receive money for photocopies.” 10 On the same date, the judge in the case, at the request of one of the parties, asks for verification as to “ w hether the accusing party submitted the corresponding document attesting to all actions taken or submitted the amount corresponding to the value of the photocopies in or der to process the appeal.” On June 3, 2002, the appeal w as declared invalid because the appellant had not supplied paper for photocopy the judicial proceedings nor had it provided the funds needed for this. 30. Various appeals w ere later filed w ith the first instance courts that continued to hear criminal proceeding 110-02 against Iván Arguello Rivera and Wilberth José Ochoa Maradiaga: i) on June 10, 2002, the legal representatives of Mrs. Acosta filed a motion to invalidate all actions taken since April 19, 2002 11 and a motion for recusal against the judge in the case. The motion to invalidate w as declared inadmissible on August 5, 2002, and this ruling w as appealed. The appeal w as declared inadmissible on August 8, 2002; 12 ii) on January 24, 2003 an appeal w as filed seeking invalidation of action taken since April 19, 2002. This appeal w as declared inadmissible – in conjunction w ith an appeal to invalidate previously filed by the Office of the Attorney General – in a ruling dated March 4, 2003, w ith the argument that the allegations on invalidity referred to a stage in the process that had already concluded. 31. On November 21, 2003 the jury trial found Iván Arguello Rivera and Wilberth José Ochoa Maradiaga guilty of the crime of murdering Francisco José García Valle. On April 21, 2004, the District Court for Civil and Criminal Matters of Bluefields sentenced them to 20 years in prison for the crime of murder. On April 26 and 27, 2004 the representatives of Mrs. Acosta and the defense attorney for Mr. Ochoa Maradiaga, respectively, appealed the conviction. On November 29, 2004, the Criminal Chamber of the Court of Appeals for the South Atlantic Circuit (Case File No. 02-04) increased the prison term by three years. With respect to these convictions, the petitioners recognize that the system of justice “ w orked appropriately.” 32. While the criminal process w as being review ed by the second instance courts, on May 11, 2004 Mrs. Acosta sought a declaration of invalidity w ith respect to all action taken since April 19, 2002 due to procedural irregularities (indicating inter alia irregularities that allow ed the appeal filed against the decision to acquit to be declared invalid). On October 28, 2004, the Regional Prosecutor for the Autonomous Region of the South Atlantic sought to set aside the proceedings conducted against the alleged masterminds and against Mrs. Acosta. On November 29, 2004, the Chamber established that “ alleged reasons for nullification and the petitions made by the parties […] w ere inadmissible, in that the decision issued by the District Judge of Bluefields on May 13, 2002 definitively acquitting the accused […] is final and has become res judicata.” 9 Appeal denied through judicial order of May 31, 2002. 10 As show n on the back of sheet 202 of court file number 110-02. 11 In addition, the file indicates that previously, on May 10, 2002, Mrs. Acosta had filed another appeal for nullification w ith t he first instance authorities seeking nullification of action taken since April 19, 2002. The file does not indicate that that appeal w as processed. Subsequently, in a ruling dated May 13, 2002, the competent judge responded to the allegations made in the filing of the appeal, but did not expressly indicate his rejection or acceptance thereof . 12 In response to this decision, on August 29, 2002, the representatives filed an appeal on substantive grounds, w hich w as rejected for procedural error on September 23, 2002; subsequently, on October 10 of the same year, the appeal w as resubmitted, correcting the indicated procedural defect, and w as rejected on October 11, 2002 for lapse and extinction of the right to file. 7