12 43. On April 22, 1993, the Second Trial Court ordered the pre-trial detention of Roberto Girón and Pedro Castillo Mendoza, indicating that “in order to issue the order for pre-trial detention it is necessary: (i) that there is adequate information that a crime has been committed, and (ii) that there are sufficient reasonable motives to believe that the person detained has committed this or taken part in it. An examination of the case file reveals that, in this proceeding, there are grounds to order the measure of pre-trial detention against the accused identified above […], so that it is necessary to rule in accordance with the law.”30 44. On April 27, 1993, LCC was appointed public defender for Roberto Girón,31 and Edy Iván Bocanegra Conde was appointed public defender for Pedro Castillo Mendoza. Both were law students rather than practicing lawyers.32 45. On May 5, 1993, the second trial judge organized a confrontation between the defendants. The corresponding record indicates that, during this procedure, only the defendants were present without their corresponding defense counsel, and that they did not agree on “every aspect” of the facts.33 46. On May 12, 1993, the First Criminal Trial Court of the Department of Escuintla decided to open criminal proceedings against Roberto Girón and Pedro Castillo Mendoza for the crime of aggravated rape.34 On June 235 and 14,36 1993, the respective defense counsel presented their arguments. 47. On June 18, 1993, the First Criminal Trial Court of Escuintla decided to open the proceedings to evidence and indicated that a public hearing would be held on July 29, 1993; it also scheduled the procedure to receive the statements of CECL, JECT, PJR and JCME. However, this was procedure was not conducted because the list of questions “presented by [Mr. Giron’s] defense, on being opened and appraised by the judge, [was] undated and [was] not signed.”37 48. On October 4, 1993, the First Criminal Trial Court of Escuintla (hereinafter also “the First Trial Court”) delivered judgment convicting the defendants, as follows: Cf. Order of pre-trial detention issued by the Second Trial Court on April 22, 1993 (evidence file, annexes to the Merits Report, annex 3, fs. 16 to 19). 31 Cf. Record of designation of April 27, 1993 (file of annexes to the Merits Report, annex 4, f. 21). 32 It is an uncontested fact that Edy Iván Bocanegra Conde acted as defense counsel for Pedro Castillo. Cf. Judgment of the First Criminal Trial Court of Escuintla of October 4, 1993 (evidence file, annexes to the Merits Report, annex 9, fs. 45 to 57). 33 Cf. Record of confrontation between the defendants by the second trial judge on May 5, 1993 (file of annexes to the Merits Report, annex 5, fs. 23 and 24). 34 Cf. Decision of the First Criminal Trial Court of the Department of Escuintla of May 12, 1993 (evidence file, annexes to the Merits Report, annex 6, fs. 26 to 28). 35 Brief of LCC presented to the first criminal trial judge of the Department of Escuintla on June 2, 1993 (evidence file, annexes to the Merits Report, annex 7, fs. 30 to 38). In this brief, he indicated, in relation to the evidence provided to the proceedings, that “the measures taken reveal that there are discrepancies between the statements of the witnesses, the captors and the police report, and also no one knew for sure that [his] client had participated in the crime.” 36 Brief of Edy Iván Bocanegra Conde presented to the first criminal trial judge of the Department of Escuintla on June 14, 1993 (evidence file, annexes to the Merits Report, annex 8, fs. 40 to 43). In this brief, he indicated that his “client had been accused of aggravated rape; [however,] […] there were mitigating circumstances that modify his criminal responsibility because he confessed to the crime in his preliminary statement and, in doing so, had helped to clarify the crime of which he is accused.” 37 Decision of the First Criminal Trial Court of the Department of Escuintla of June 18, 1993 (evidence file, annexes to the answering brief, fs. 2432 and 2433). It should be noted that the record of the failure to hold the hearing of July 15, 1993, does not mention JCME (evidence file, annexes to the answering brief, f. 2438). 30