72 Chamber of the Court of Appeals on which there was still no ruling.140 On September 28, 1999, the amparo remedy was rejected because the prior steps had not been exhausted, since there was a remedy of complaint pending before the Appellate Chamber;141 134.57. on November 4, 1999, the defendants filed an amparo remedy before the Supreme Court of Justice against the ruling of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of Appeals that found the remedy of complaint filed by them against the Third Trial Court inadmissible.142 On March 23, 2000, the Supreme Court of Justice rejected the amparo remedy deeming it notoriously inadmissible, ordered payment of legal costs by the one who brought the action, and fined their defense counsel.143 On March 31, 2000, the defendants filed an appeal against the ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice on the amparo remedy before the Constitutional Court.144 On May 8, 2000, the Constitutional Court decided to summon a hearing on May 11, 2000, for the parties to state their position on the matter.145 On May 11, 2000, the private accuser at the respective hearing requested that the appeal regarding the amparo remedy be rejected to allow the proceeding to move forward.146 On August 1, 2000, the Constitutional Court found the appeal regarding the amparo remedy filed by the defendants unfounded;147 134.58. on October 6, 2000, the Third Trial Court issued a ruling in which it ordered that the objection filed by the defendants against all the judges who constituted the Third Trial Court itself be forwarded to the Fourth Chamber of the Court of Appeals for it to hear that objection. Previously, the Third Trial Court rejected the objection because it deemed that it had no legal or factual basis at all. It also ordered continuation of the proceeding.148 The September 9, 1999 ruling of 140 Cf. amparo remedy filed before the First Chamber of the Court of Appeals on September 21, 1999 (file with evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case submitted by the State on October 13 and 27, 2003, leaves 10765 to 10771). 141 Cf. Order of the First Chamber of the Court of Appeals of September 28, 1999 (file with evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case submitted by the State on October 13 and 27, 2003, leaves 10779 to 10783). 142 Cf. amparo remedy filed before the Supreme Court of Justice on November 2, 1999 (file with annexes to the brief answering the application and raising preliminary objections, leaves 6826 to 6840). 143 Cf. judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of March 23, 2000 (file with annexes to the brief answering the application and raising preliminary objections, leaves 6896 to 6904). 144 Cf. appeal before the Constitutional Court on March 31, 2000 (file with evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case submitted by the State on October 13 and 27, 2003, leaves 10794 to 10795). 145 Cf. application by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of June 19, 2001 (dossier on the merits and possible reparations, volume I, leaf 45). 146 Cf. application by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of June 19, 2001 (dossier on the merits and possible reparations, volume I, leaf 45). 147 Cf. Order of the Constitutional Court of August 1, 2000 (file with annexes to the application, annex 38, leaves 746 to 756). 148 Cf. application by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of June 19, 2001 (dossier on the merits and possible reparations, volume I, leaf 46); and ruling of the Third Criminal, Drug Trafficking and Environmental Crimes Trial Court of October 6, 2000 (file with annexes to the brief answering the application and raising preliminary objections, leaves 7986 to 7990).