65 134.35. on August 9 and 12, 1996, the Special Prosecutor92 in the case and the private accuser,93 respectively, filed appeals against the ruling on self-disqualification of the First Criminal, Drug Trafficking and Environmental Crimes Court of First Instance, based on the fact that the proceeding against Edgar Augusto Godoy Gaitán, Juan Valencia Osorio and Juan Guillermo Oliva Carrera began with the cassation judgment, for which reason it is juridically impossible to argue that their proceeding and that against Noel de Jesús Beteta Álvarez are one and the same. The accused filed an application for reconsideration against that ruling.94 The Court processed the appeals filed by the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the private accuser, and declared the application for reconsideration file by the accused out of order.95 The Third Chamber of the Court of Appeals heard the appeals filed by the Public Prosecutor’s Office and by the private accuser and found them inadmissible on August 21 and September 4, 1996, respectively;96 134.36. on October 20, 1996 the private accuser filed an amparo remedy before the Supreme Court of Justice against the Justices of the Third Chamber of the Court of Appeals.97 On February 24, 1997, the Supreme Court of Justice found the amparo remedy to be notoriously inadmissible because it was time-barred;98 134.37. on October 15, 1996, the private accuser filed an amparo remedy before the Third Chamber of the Court of Appeals against the First Criminal, Drug Trafficking and Environmental Crimes Court of First Instance regarding the latter’s ruling in which it disqualified itself from continuing to hear the proceeding.99 On February 27, 1997, the Third Chamber of the Court of Appeals found this remedy 92 Cf. appeal to the First Criminal, Drug Trafficking and Environmental Crimes Court of First Instance on August 9, 1996 (file with annexes to the brief including answer to the application and filing of preliminary objections, leaves 5466 to 5472). 93 Cf. appeal to the First Criminal, Drug Trafficking and Environmental Crimes Court of First Instance on August 12, 1996 (file with annexes to the brief answering the application and raising preliminary objections, leaves 5459 to 5464). 94 Cf. application for reconsideration before the First Criminal, Drug Trafficking and Environmental Crimes Court of First Instance of August 10, 1996 (file with annexes to the brief answering the application and raising preliminary objections, leaves 5474 to 5481). 95 Cf. rulings of the First Criminal, Drug Trafficking and Environmental Crimes Court of First Instance of August 13, 1996 (file with annexes to the brief answering the application and raising preliminary objections, leaves 5465, 5473 and 5480). 96 Cf. Order of the Third Chamber of the Court of Appeals of August 21, 1996 (file with annexes to the brief answering the application and raising preliminary objections, leaves 5488 to 5491; and Order of the Third Chamber of the Court of Appeals of September 4, 1996 (file with annexes to the brief answering the application and raising preliminary objections, leaves 5503 to 5506). 97 Cf. amparo remedy filed before the Supreme Court of Justice on October 20, 1996 (file with annexes including answer to the application and filing of preliminary objections, leaves 6326 to 6334). 98 Cf. Order of the Supreme Court of Justice of February 24, 1997 (file with annexes to the brief including answer to the application and filing of preliminary objections, leaves 6381 a 6387). 99 Cf. amparo remedy filed before the Supreme Court of Justice on October 15, 1996 (file with annexes to the brief answering the application and raising preliminary objections, leaves 6390 to 6402).