law, and special protection.”59 The Office of the Prosecutor for the Defense of Human Rights requested that the presiding judge quickly issue a decision regarding the appeal.60 48. On April 30, 2002, the Executive Secretary of the National Council for the Attention and Comprehensive Protection of Children and Adolescents sent a communication to the Attorney General of the Republic,61 reporting that the appeal for annulment filed by Mrs. V.P.C.’s legal representatives had not yet been resolved. Accordingly, it requested that the Attorney General “bring his good offices to bear so that the departmental prosecution service issues the corresponding judgment as regards the appeal for the annulment of the jury’s verdict.” In addition, the Executive Secretary asked the Court to process that remedy “in accordance with the law.”62 49. On May 8, 2002, Ana Sequeira, the prosecutor in Jinoteca, wrote to the Court,63 stating that she believed it was necessary to open the evidentiary phase of the annulment appeal and for the members of the jury who adopted the verdict ruling Mr. Rodríguez innocent to be called to appear. 64 50. On May 13, 2002, the District Criminal Court issued a decision granting the appeal filed by Mrs. V.P.C. and it declared the nullity of the Verdict No. 3365 It states that the “petitioner has doubts”66 regarding Clause 8 of Article 444 of the Criminal Code, 67 which refers to the bribery of jury members. The Court requested the selection of a new jury and a new trial to be held on the matter. 68 Furthermore, it issued an arrest warrant for Mr. Rodríguez.69 51. That same day, Mr. Rodríguez was again detained by the National Police. 70 In addition, Mr. Rodríguez’s defense team lodged an appeal against that decision, which was admitted by the Court.71 52. As indicated by the District Criminal Court, Prosecutor Ana Sequiera did not sign the notification of the Court’s resolution and stated that “whatever is most convenient should be decided.”72 59 Annex 18. Pronouncement by the Prosecutor for the Defense of Human Rights, April 25, 2002. 60 Annex 18. Pronouncement by the Prosecutor for the Defense of Human Rights, April 25, 2002. Annex 2. Communication of the Executive Secretary of the National Council for the Attention and Comprehensive Protection of Children and Adolescents, p. 672, criminal case file. 61 62 Annex 2. Communication of the Executive Secretary of the National Council for the Attention and Comprehensive Protection of Children and Adolescents, p. 673, criminal case file. 63 Annex 2. Communication from the prosecutor in Jinoteca, Ana Sequeira, p. 103, criminal case file. 64 Annex 2. Communication from the prosecutor in Jinoteca, Ana Sequeira, p. 103, criminal case file. 65 Annex 2. Communication of the Jinoteca District Criminal Judge, page 708, criminal case file. Annex 2. Official note of the District Criminal Court, May 13, 2002. Annexed to the communication from the petitioner received on October 28, 2002. 66 67 Article 444. 8. There are substantial nullities with respect to the jury’s verdict or declaration: (…) 8. If the jurors have been bribed. Available at: http://www.sergiocuarezma.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/06-Codigo-de-instruccion-criminal.pdf 68 Annex 2. Official note of the District Criminal Court, May 13, 2002. Annexed to the communication from the petitioner received on October 28, 2002. 69 Annex 2. Official note of the District Criminal Court, May 13, 2002. Annexed to the communication from the petitioner received on October 28, 2002. 70 Annex 2. National Police deed, p. 711, criminal case file. 71 Annex 19. Judicial resolution of the Criminal Chamber of the Northern District Appellate Court, January 13, 2003. Annex H to the communication received on March 16, 2005. 72 Annex 20. Official note of the District Criminal Court, May 13, 2002. Annexed to the communication from the petitioner received on October 28, 2002.