motions filed," the parties were summoned to appear before the Criminal Court of Guarantees for the Intermediate Stage on November 26, 2003.36 34. Anticipating the “demise” of the case, on September 8, 2003, the Public Prosecution Service filed an objection challenging the constitutionality of certain articles of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Code of Criminal Procedure that the defense of the accused persons sought to use to justify extinction of the criminal action, which objection the alleged victim joined.37 The Public Prosecution Service based its motion on the fact that it would violate the rule by which the offense of torture is not subject to limitation (Article 5 of the Constitution) and the principle of constitutional supremacy. The prosecution filed four “requests for urgency” with the Supreme Court so thatthe objection would be resolved.38 35. On May 5, 2008, the Supreme Court ruled on the objection on constitutional grounds, ruling Articles 25 (3), 136, and 137 of the Code of Criminal Procedure inapplicable.39 36. As stated in the judgment of the Supreme Court, the case has been on "writ for judgment" since December 18, 2003. Likewise, the IACHR notes that the Public Prosecution Service presented three requests in 2006 and one in 2007 for the prompt resolution of the matter, which was also made by one of the alleged victims of the crimes charged. Likewise, the record shows that the plaintiff Alfredo Cáceres, in a brief dated March 27, 2007, moved for the recusal of Dr. Víctor Nuñez "with cause," asserting that, according to the Secretariat's computer system, "from April 5, 2004, until September 2006, the aforementioned case file was kept in his office prior to the offering of an opinion, that is, for a period of two years or so after I had presented the respective pertinent requests for urgency (...) until I was informed by Justice José Altamirano that he had signed his opinion on September 23, 2006, and then I had no further news of the case file, until my attorney reported its disappearance on February 22 of this year, after which I had news of it again (...) on March 7, 2007.” On May 23, 2007, the justice recused himself from the case. The IACHR notes that between May and July 2007, four justices recused themselves from examining the case, until August 7, 2007, when a justice agreed to join the Constitutional Division.40 37. Following the Supreme Court's ruling on the objection on constitutional grounds, a request for clarification of the decision was submitted by the defendants' counsel. 41 According to a press release contained in the record, the scheduled preliminary hearing was again suspended on June 16, 2009, after the lawyers for the defendants presented motions.42 The IACHR notes that in 2012 the State reported that a preliminary hearing had been set for July 24, 2012. It also mentioned that prior to that, the case had been held up in a separate proceeding involving the recusal of three judges, which the Supreme Court decided by means of an interlocutory order of April 10, 2012, in which it ruled inadmissible an appeal against "I.A. No. February 4, 8, 2012."43 According to a press release, the hearing was postponed for a ninth time and rescheduled for August 29.44 38. According to a brief included in the record in 2018, by then the process had been going on for 16 years without a preliminary hearing held.45 It also includes a notice dated March 9, 2018, advising the parties that the review hearing requested by the accused Walter Bower would not be held due to a recusal motion filed by the defense counsel for one of the accused.46 In 2018, the judge in the case reportedly sanctioned Walter Bower Annex 7, Decision and Judgment No. 195 of May 5, 2008. Enclosed with the State's communication of August 27, 2008. Annex 8, Challenge of the Public Prosecution Service on “Objection to challenge constitutionality,” of September 8, 2003. Enclosed with the State's communication of August 27, 2008. 38 Annex 6, Report of the Public Prosecution Service on Case No. 2606/2000, "Basilio Pavón et al. - Bodily injury in the exercise of public functions" of August 19, 2008. Enclosed with the State's communication of August 27, 2008. 39 Annex 7, Decision and Judgment No. 195 of May 5, 2008. Enclosed with the State's communication of August 27, 2008. 40 Annex 7, Decision and Judgment No. 195 of May 5, 2008. Enclosed with the State's communication of August 27, 2008. 41 Annex 6, Report of the Public Prosecution Service on Case No. 2606/2000, "Basilio Pavón et al. - Bodily injury in the exercise of public functions" of August 19, 2008. Enclosed with the State's communication of August 27, 2008. 42 Annex 9, “Juez suspendió audiencia de Bower y Merardo Palacios,” Digital ABC, June 16, 2009. Petitioner's brief of January 11, 2012. 43 State’s brief of July 6, 2012. 44 Annex 10, “Novena Audiencia diferida de Bower,” ABC, p. 37. Petitioner's communication of July 25, 2012. 45 Brief received on March 3, 2018 – not dated or signed by the sender. 46 Annex 11, “Case of Basilio Pavon et al. - Bodily injury in the exercise of public functions,” No. 1-1-2-1-2000-2626.” Document received without a main document. 36 37 10