respectively, the appellate court also issued decisions rejecting the appeals for "amplification" and "replacement" filed by the Public Ministry. Helen Mack also filed an appeal for "amplification" requesting that the Court of Appeals explain further the reasons upon which it based its rejection of the petition to try the other persons suspected of having participated in the murder of her sister. On June 14, 1993, that appeal was also rejected. 19. The private accuser filed an appeal of "cassation" with the Supreme Court of Guatemala against the sentence of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of Appeals emitted on April 28, 1993. At this point, the Public Ministry refused to continue to pursue any further appeals or to request the initiation of a criminal proceeding against the intellectual authors of the murder. 20. In support of the appeal of cassation, the private accuser alleged violations of her rights to petition and to freedom of access to the courts of justice, arguing that her petitions to open an investigation with respect to the other persons involved in the death of her sister had been repeatedly denied. In the public hearing on the appeal which took place on July 26, 1993 at the Supreme Court, the Public Ministry stated that, if a new proceeding were to be initiated, that proceeding should only be brought against the other material author who participated in the actual murder with Beteta. The Public Ministry asked that no proceeding be initiated against the suspected intellectual authors at the EMP. 21. On February 9, 1994, the Supreme Court rejected the appeal of cassation holding that Helen Mack's rights had not been violated as alleged. The Court also rejected the appeal of "amparo" brought by Beteta against the decision of the Fourt Chamber of the Court of Appeals which upheld his conviction. 22. Pursuant to the powers granted by Article 749 of the Guatemalan Criminal Procedure Code, the Supreme Court decided sua sponte ("de oficio") to analyze again the decision of the Court of Appeals. Analyzing the case for the second time, the Court held that the right of the private accuser to carry out the accusation had been violated. The Court concluded that sufficient indicia of the possible participation of other persons in the murder were produced in the first proceeding. By decision of February 9, 1994, the Court ordered that a criminal proceeding be opened against the following suspects: Edgar Godoy Gaitán, Juan Valencia Osorio, Juan Guillermo Oliva Carrera, Juan José Larios, Juan José del Cid Morales and an individual of the last name Charchal. The question of the participation of these suspects in the murder of Myrna Mack was to be decided in this new proceeding. 23. The new criminal proceeding was delayed while the accused higher officials attempted without success to nullify the February 9, 1994 order of the Supreme Court requiring the initiation of a proceeding against them. On December 6, 1994, the Court of Constitutionality issued a decision rejecting the petition for amparo brought by the accused persons. However, the new criminal proceeding remained inactive during almost one year, after the December 6, 1994 sentence until the end of 1995, because of the failure to appoint a new prosecutor and because of the refusal of the military to cooperate in the investigation providing the necessary information. 24. In this second proceeding, the private accuser filed with the Supreme Court a request for "Injunctive Relief of Attachment" of documents in the possession of the National Ministry of Defense and the EMP. Helen Mack filed this request in an attempt to protect and obtain evidentiary items important to her attempt to prove the complicity of the second set of defendants in the murder of Myrna Mack. The request was rejected by the Court on March 18, 1994. 25. The private accuser filed an appeal for amparo with the Court of Constitutionality against the Supreme Court decision of March 18, 1994 rejecting the request for the injunctive relief of attachment. The appeal was based on the argument that she had been denied her rights to petition and to freedom of access to the courts, protected by the laws and Constitution of Guatemala. On October 18, 1994, the Court of Constitutionality denied the appeal for amparo, without analyzing the merits. The Court simply stated that the Supreme Court had acted in accordance with its legal powers, because that court no longer had possession of the Myrna Mack 4