31 31, February 14 and 18, 2003, one of the accused filed a motion for reversal101 and an appeal for legal protection102, which were rejected, as well as a constitutional motion. The referred motion suspended the process from February 17, 2003 until February 23, 2009, when it was rejected by the Court of Appeals103. The accused appealed the judgment, and it is currently pending resolution104. 99. Between March 2003 and 2009 three appeals for legal protection were filed; one was granted, ruling the annulment of all actions as of December 28, 1996105, another one was rejected106, and one is pending resolution107. 100. Finally, due to the processing of the criminal proceeding, between April 2000 and March 2003 the accused filed: at least 33 appeals for legal protection, 19 appeals for reversal, 19 claims for remedy, 2 motions for amendment, and one constitutional motion. 2. Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1 and 2 thereof; Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture, and Article 7(b) of the Convention of de Belem do Pará. 101. Notwithstanding the partial recognition of responsibility performed by the State regarding the facts of denial of justice, as well as its acknowledgement of the violations of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention (supra para. 36), the Court, based on the framework of its jurisdiction, and assessing the gravity of the facts generated by the referred violations, deems it necessary to conduct certain specific considerations to establish those violations that have generated the State’s international responsibility. 102. In light of the gravity of the facts and of the claim filed by FAMDEGUA on June 14, 1994 before the Criminal Court of First Instance of Petén, a proceeding has been initiated in the ordinary criminal jurisdiction, which is still in its initial phase. In this regard, the Commission indicated that “according to that expressly recognized appendix 65, fs. 8771 to 8774), and of the Twelfth Chamber of the Court of Appeals of February 6, 2003, regarding the request by Carlos Antonio Carías Lopez (Appendixes to the application, judicial file, pieces 1 to 3, appendix 65, f. 8811). 101 Cf. Judgment of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of Appeals of February 3, 2003 on the appeal for reversal filed by Roberto Aníbal Rivera Martínez on January 31, 2003 (Appendixes to the application, judicial file, pieces 1 to 3, appendix 65, fs. 8789 to 8790). 102 Cf. Judgment of the Constitutional Court of September 23, 2004, regarding the appeal filed by Roberto Aníbal Rivera Martínez on February 18, 2003 (Appendixes to the application, judicial file, pieces 1 to 3, appendix 61, fs. 8462 to 8471). 103 Cf. Judgment of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of Appeals of February 23, 2009, regarding the constitutional appeal filed by Roberto Aníbal Rivera Martínez on February 14, 2003 (Supervening evidence presented by the representatives, appendix 7, fs. 19767 to 19770). 104 Cf. Brief presented by Roberto Aníbal Rivera Martínez before the Fourth Chamber of the Court of Appeals, on March 6, 2009 (Supervening evidence submitted by the representatives, appendix 7, fs. 19771 to 19774). 105 Cf. Judgment of the Constitutional Court of December 8, 2004 on the appeal filed by Reyes Collin Gualip on March 7, 2003 (Appendixes to the application, appendix 62, f. 8550 to 8557). 106 Cf. Judgment of the Constitutional Court of August 7, 2007 on the appeal filed by Roberto Aníbal Rivera Martínez on March 12, 2003 (Appendixes to the brief of pleadings and motions, appendix 10, fs. 9381 to 9387). 107 Cf. Brief presented by Reyes Collin Gualip on March 13, 2009 (Supervening evidence submitted by the representatives, appendix 6, fs. 19659 to 19675).