35 114. On the other hand, the accused in the criminal proceeding filed their appeals for legal protection before seven different chambers of the Court of Appeals, which recognized their jurisdiction to hear them, although the Supreme Court of Justice had established jurisdiction solely to the Twelfth Chamber of the Court of Appeals to hear matters from Petén123. Consequently, the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Tenth, and Thirteenth Chambers examined the appeals even though they did not have jurisdiction to process criminal matters, which, according to the representatives, “prevented the Twelfth Chamber from counteracting the delaying tactic [of the accused] by accumulating appeals for legal protection of the same nature.” 115. Furthermore, in those cases in which appeals for legal protection were filed with the same facts and before the same chamber, the judges did not admit the accumulation of these appeals124, breaching Articles 54 and 55 of the Criminal Procedural Code of Guatemala, which establishes that for reasons of judicial economy, proceedings for related crimes that are publicly actionable are heard by a single court. 116. In light of this scenario, the Court takes cognizance of the indication by the Supreme Court of Justice, which in the statement of its motives for the bill to reform the Law on the appeal for legal protection (Bill No. 3319125), still pending approval, claimed that: [t]he scope with which the appeal for legal protection process is currently regulated has caused serious inconveniences which materialized into obstacles to a prompt, fulfilled and effective administration of justice. Such inconveniences stand out in the abusive use of the appeal for legal protection in judicial matters, which causes a deliberate delay in ordinary processes, noncompliance with the processing time, fully inconsistent with the principle of judicial economy126. 117. Likewise, the Court takes cognizance of the Joint Opinion, issued by the Commissions for the Amendment of the Justice Sector and Legislation and Constitutional Points on the amendment to the Law on the Appeal for Legal Protection in Guatemala, whereby they confirm the importance of reviewing this law considered permissive, whose interpretation has led to abuses, deliberate delays and obstacles to a prompt and fulfilled justice. Additionally, it establishes that “it is necessary to clarify, expand or explain norms which have currently given way to various interpretations and applications that cause unnecessary delays in the processing of appeals for legal protection and processes that distort its object and purpose.127” 118. The International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala (hereinafter “CICIG”) has also ruled on the need to modify the Law on the Appeal for Legal 123 Agreement No. 17-91 of the Supreme Court of Justice whereby the Twelfth Chamber of the Court of Appeals, with its seat in Guatemala, published in the journal “Diario de Centro América” on September 24, 1991 (Appendixes to the brief of pleadings and motions, appendix 3, , f. 9263). 124 As inferred from the analysis of the judgments of the Constitutional Court, specifically the resolution of appeals for legal protection filed between September and October 2000 (representatives’ brief on final arguments, appendix 1, table of appeals filed, fs. 19789 to 19795). 125 Bill No. 3319 of August 17, 2005, which proposes amendments to the Law on the Appeal for Legal Protection (Appendixes to the brief of pleadings and motions, appendix 5, fs. 9271 to 9284). 126 127 Statement of the motives for Bill No. 3319, supra note 125, f. 9273. Joint favorable opinion on Bill No. 3319 of the Commissions for Reform of the Justice Sector, Legislation, and Constitutional Points (Appendixes to the brief on pleadings and motions, appendix 6, fs. 9286 to 9287).