Furthermore, the Northern District Appellate Court Criminal Chamber issued a certification indicating that Prosecutor Sequiera “did not appear at the proceedings.”73 53. On October 21, 2002, Mrs. V.P.C. lodged a complaint with the Attorney General’s Office alleging that the prosecutor who had taken up the case, Ana Sequeira, did not appear at the proceedings in the second instance.74 She maintained that the prosecutor did not guarantee her daughter’s rights.75 She also alleged that during her daughter’s forensic medical examination, the judge allowed people unrelated to the examination to be present.76 She maintained that the judge allowed Mr. Rodríguez’s defense to refer to her and her daughter “in immoral terms.”77 She maintained that the defense delivered a suspicious package to the judge, as well as to members of the jury.78 54. On November 8, 2002, Mrs. V.P.C. lodged a complaint with the Disciplinary Committee of the Supreme Court of Justice regarding the irregularities mentioned in the above paragraph allegedly committed by the presiding judge, Adriana Molina.79 55. The Commission has no information on any steps taken in connection with the two complaints referred to in the preceding paragraphs. 56. On January 13, 2003, the Criminal Chamber of the Northern District Appellate Court issued a judgment upholding the appeal remedy filed by Mr. Rodríguez’s defense team.80 The Chamber’s ruling stated that: (…) the judge (…) in issuing this judgment (…) on May 13, 2002, exceeded her authority by basing her ruling on the doubt of the accusers. (…) and doubt must always be interpreted in the way that best favors the accused (…).81 57. Consequently, the Chamber found that since the judge in question acted “in a notoriously anomalous way,” it had to establish “the substantial and absolute annulment of the proceedings as of [that] ruling.” The Chamber also ordered the release of Mr. Rodríguez. 82 Finally, it requested that the corresponding court open the evidentiary phase of the annulment appeal.83 58. On March 10, 2003, the Office of the Prosecutor for the Defense of Human Rights issued a communication identifying the different irregularities during the proceedings. 84 These include, among others: 73 Annex 21. Certification of the Northern District Appellate Court of September 26, 2002. Annexed to the communication from the petitioner received on February 12, 2003 74 Annex 22. Official note from V.P.C of October 21, 2002. Annex H to the Communication received on March 16, 2005. 75 Annex 22. Official note from V.P.C of October 21, 2002. Annex H to the Communication received on March 16, 2005. 76 Annex 22. Official note from V.P.C of October 21, 2002. Annex H to the Communication received on March 16, 2005. 77 Annex 22. Official note from V.P.C of October 21, 2002. Annex H to the Communication received on March 16, 2005. 78 Annex 22. Official note from V.P.C of October 21, 2002. Annex H to the Communication received on March 16, 2005. 79 Annex 23. Brief from V.P.C. of November 8, 2002. Annex K to the communication received on March 16, 2005. 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. 80 81 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. 82 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. 83 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. 84 Annex 24. Report from the Office of the Prosecutor for the Defense of Human Rights of March 10, 2003. Annex G to the communication received on March 16, 2005.