44 within the term established, nor did it do so afterwards. Finally, as regards commitment ten, pertaining to relations between the parties, she deemed that there has been constant communication. During the verification period guarantees of due process were not fulfilled, because there were obstructions of justice by the Ministry of National Defense, which limited access to evidence that was important both for the Public Prosecutor’s Office and for the private accuser. Furthermore, legislation was inadequate and there was unjustifiable non-compliance with procedural terms. At the time of verification, there being a resolution in this regard, an amparo remedy was filed for the second time on the objection with respect to lack of competence of civilian jurisdiction and military jurisdiction, for which reason she does not think that there was a political will of the State to fulfill the commitments. Her verification concluded due to a decision of the parties before the Commission. h. Testimony of Nadezhda Vásquez Cucho, attorney for the Myrna Mack Foundation27 She has worked at the Myrna Mack Foundation since 1999 as a legal adviser regarding the Myrna Mack Chang murder case and in the investigation on administration of justice in Guatemala. With respect to the Myrna Mack Chang case, her work consisted of advising, first of all on procedural matters, analyzing and preparing various replies to the remedies filed by the defense counsel and debating with the attorneys for the defense. Secondly, it involved the design of the probatory strategy in the trial against the accessories. Once the Supreme Court of Justice left the criminal proceeding in this case open in 1995, the investigation against the accessories began but the trial took place on October 3, 2002, that is, eight years later. This delay was due to the fact that all the regular remedies filed in the proceeding were decided with procedural delays. Furthermore, the courts constantly discussed competence to hear the case, as there were several debates regarding whether it should be heard under military or civil jurisdiction. Some decisions of the judges were contradictory and mistaken. Finally, the delay was also due to the abusive and indiscriminate use of the amparo remedy as a delay tactic, processed with the respective procedural delays. Fourteen amparo remedies were filed in the proceeding against the accessories. The defense counsel filed “eleven,” all of which were found to be inadmissible and nine of them were notoriously irrelevant, for which reason the defense counsel was penalized for lack of good faith. The issues discussed in these amparo remedies were, among others, the cassation ruling that left the proceeding against the accessories open; denial of the benefit of extinguishment of criminal responsibility set forth in the 1996 “National Reconciliation Law in Guatemala;” and admission of evidence of the Public Prosecutor’s Office and of the private accuser. There was even an amparo remedy regarding a ruling to deny transfer of the case to military courts, and finally there was an amparo remedy to defend “the interests of the civil actor,” who in this case was Lucrecia Hernández Mack, daughter of the victim. 27 The witness rendered testimony on the development, obstacles, and outcomes of the criminal proceedings under domestic jurisdiction against the direct perpetrators and the accessories of the extralegal execution of Myrna Mack Chang. She referred to the de facto and legal obstacles that have held back the normal processing of the case from the start to date.