30 two motions for amendment94 –one of which was reiterated twice-95, and two claims for remedy of the procedure96, were filed with the purpose of annulling all actions as of December 28, 1996. On the other hand, on February 11 and 12, 2003, three of the accused filed individual appeals for reversal, which were granted by the Tenth Chamber of the Court of Appeals. 97 97. On February 5, 2003,98 the Prosecutor presented his argument about the application of the LRN before the Tenth Chamber of the Court of Appeals. He expressed that the referred Law is applicable exclusively to criminal acts product of the internal armed confrontation, by people involved in this confrontation and for the purpose of “preventing, impeding, prosecuting or suppressing the offenses recognized in Articles 2 and 4 of this law as political crimes and other commonly related,” and stated: “how did the accused expect to prevent, impede, prosecute or suppress the crimes referred to in Articles 2 and 4 of the [LRN], with the raping of girls and women or with the murder of newborns or young children and elderly, or with the torture and murder of an entire unarmed and defenseless civil population? Within this context it is evident that the events that occurred […] in the community of ‘Las Dos Erres’ were not committed by the army of Guatemala for the purposes indicated in Article 5 of the referred Law.” In conclusion, the Prosecutor requested the cause of action for the application of the LRN to be disallowed, and for the criminal proceeding be continued99. 98. On the other hand, between January 7 and February 6, 2003, several of the accused requested the appointment of Francisco José Palomo Tejada as defense counsel, which was turned down100. Prior to this negative answer, between January appendix 58, f. 8220). Additionally, Reyes Collin Gualip filed an appeal before the Fourth Chamber of the Court of appeals, which is incorrectly cited in the application (f. 64). It was therefore not found, which the representatives confirmed by indicating that they do not have the corresponding file (representatives’ brief on closing arguments, appendix 1, f. 19797). On the other hand, the representatives also claimed that on those dates two additional appeals were filed, on July 11, 2002 by Carlos Antonio Carías López before the Tenth Chamber of the Court of Appeals, and on August 5, 2002 by Roberto Aníbal Rivera Martínez before the First Chamber of the Court of Appeals. These appeals are not in the application either, and the representatives indicated that they do not have the corresponding papers (representatives’ brief on closing arguments, appendix 1, f. 19796 to 19797). Consequently the Court is not counting them as appeals filed. 94 Cf. Briefs presented by Reyes Collin Gualip before the Twelfth Chamber of the Court of Appeals on July 2, 2002 (Appendixes to the application, judicial file, pieces 1 to 3, appendix 65, fs. 8674 to 8675) and César Adán Rosales Batres before the Twelfth Chamber of the Court of Appeals on July 2, 2002 (Appendixes to the application, judicial file, pieces 1 to 3, appendix 65, fs. 8677 to 8680). 95 Cf. Briefs submitted by Reyes Collin Gualip before the Fourth Chamber of the Court of Appeals on October 15, 2002, (Appendixes to the application, judicial file, pieces 1 to 3, appendix 66, fs. 8903 to 8904), and the Fourth Chamber of the Court of Appeals on January 15, 2003 (Appendixes to the application, judicial file, pieces 1 to 3, appendix 67, fs. 8972 to 8973). 96 Cf. Briefs presented by Roberto Aníbal Rivera Martínez before the Twelfth Chamber of the Court of Appeals on July 2, 2002 (Appendixes to the application, judicial file, pieces 1 to 3, appendix 66, fs. 8682 to 8689) and Roberto Aníbal Rivera Martínez before the Fourth Chamber of the Court of Appeals on January 17, 2003 (Appendixes to the application, judicial file, pieces 1 to 3, appendix 67, fs. 8980 to 8685). 97 Cf. Judgment of the Tenth Chamber of the Court of Appeals of February 14, 2003, regarding the appeals for reversal filed by César Adán Rosales Batres, Reyes Collin Gualip and Roberto Anibal Rivera Martínez (Appendixes to the application, judicial file, pieces 1 to 3, appendix 65, fs. 8852 to 8857). 98 The referred document is dated February 6, 2003, however, the received stamp by the Court of Appeals indicates February 5, 2003. 99 Cf. Brief submitted by the Special Prosecutor of the Public Prosecutor’s Office before the Tenth Chamber of the Court of Appeals, received on February 5, 2003 (Appendixes to the application, judicial file, pieces 1 to 3, appendix 65, fs. 8793 to 8807). 100 Cf. Judgments of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of Appeals of January 24, 2003, regarding the request by Roberto Aníbal Rivera Martínez (Appendixes to the application, judicial file, pieces 1 to 3,