5 Court”) the execution of the Judgments issued by the InterAmerican Court in the present case, and, therefore, requested i) the nullity of the dismissal passed in favor of thirteen of the defendants brought before the First Instance Court for Criminal Activity, Drug Trafficking, and Crimes against the Environment, of the Department of Ratalhuleu (hereinafter “the Court of Retalhuleu”) of March 8, 1999, and ii) “offer the Plaintiff,” Mrs. Jennifer Harbury, “participation.” Said First Instance Court had adopted the mentioned dismissal of 1998 after assessing a variety of evidence and considering that “there was not enough certainty that the defendants […] had participated in the accused crimes” and that “there was no reasonable possibility of including new evidence;”8 b) On December 11, 2009, the Supreme Court, upon ruling on the request filed by the Public Prosecutors’ Office, took into account i) the principles of pacta sunt servanda and good faith in compliance with the treaties; ii) that the Inter-American Court “declared that the domestic Judgment issued violates the universal legal principles of justice;” and iii) that the State “under the pretext of domestic legislation cannot obstruct or prevent compliance with that ordered by the supranational Tribunal.” Therefore, it declared, “it is necessary to execute the nullity of the national resolution mentioned” and “start a new proceeding and offer therein an unrestricted respect of the rules of due process.” The Supreme Court indicated that the decision of the aforementioned First Instance Criminal Court “and all the actions within the criminal proceedings […] C-603-96” were “declared contrary to the essential processing rights and principles pursuant with the arguments held” by the Inter-American Court. Thus, the Supreme Court declared the “self-enforceability of the Judgment issued by the Inter-American Court” on November 25, 2000, and “the annulment of the judgment” of the Court of Retalhuleu of March 8, 1999, and “the judicial actions within the proceedings.” c) Thus the Supreme Court ordered that “the procedural actions be forwarded” to the Court of Retalhuleu, which “shall comply with”: “[r]equesting from the Courts’ General Archive, or 8 Cf. decision C-603-99-2º.Jdo. issued on March 8, 1999 by the First Instance Court: Criminal Crimes, Drug Trafficking, and Crimes against the Environment of Retalhuleu (dossier of monitoring compliance, volume II, folios 1311 to 1315).