62 134.26. the parties have filed at least fifteen amparo remedies –the private accuser filed three and the defense counsel filed twelve- and numerous objections to judges, applications for reconsideration, requests for amnesty and constitutional motions, throughout the proceeding against the alleged accessories of the murder of Myrna Mack Chang; there were also appeals against several of the rulings that rejected said remedies. Both the processing of the remedies and of the appeals and non-compliance with procedural teams and disputes over competence have led to substantial delays in the criminal proceeding;71 Continuation of the criminal proceeding against the alleged accessories 134.27. on March 10, 1994, the accused Juan Valencia Osorio, Juan Guillermo Oliva Carrera, and Edgar Augusto Godoy Gaitán filed three amparo remedies before the Constitutional Court against the February 9, 1994 ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice, which had left open the judicial proceeding against them for the murder of Myrna Mack Chang.72 On December 6, 1994, the Constitutional Court rejected said amparo remedies,73 and this decision was notified on March 9, 1995;74 134.28. on March 29, 1995, the Third Criminal Trial Court of First Instance decided to remit the proceeding to the Military Court of First Instance of the Department of Guatemala for it to continue hearing the proceeding in accordance with the new Criminal Procedures Code;75 134.29. on December 6, 1995 the private accuser filed a “query on competence” before the Military Court of First Instance of the Department of Guatemala, arguing that the proceeding should be heard under civil rather than military jurisdiction.76 On December 11, 1995, the Military Court flatly rejected the query on competence, deeming it to be out of order.77 On December 18, 1995 the private accuser filed an appeal against the previous ruling and requested that the case record be forwarded 71 Cf. testimony by Nadezhda Vásquez Cucho, Helen Mack Chang, Henry Monroy Andrino and Gabriela Vásquez Smerilli rendered before the Court on February 18 and 19, 2003; and report by the Comisión para el Esclarecimiento Histórico, “Guatemala, memoria del silencio,” volume VI, pages 242 to 243 (file with annexes to the application, annex 42, leaf 792). 72 Cf. Judgment by the Constitutional Court of December 6, 1994 (file with annexes to the application, annex 20, leaves 554 to 565). 73 Cf. Judgment by the Constitutional Court of December 6, 1994 (file with annexes to the application, annex 20, leaves 554 to 565). 74 Cf. application by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of June 19, 2001 (dossier on the merits and possible reparations, volume I, leaf 24). 75 Cf. application by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of June 19, 2001 (dossier on the merits and possible reparations, volume I, leaf 25). 76 Cf. query regarding competence before the Military Court of First Instance of the Department of Guatemala of December 6, 1995 (file with annexes to the brief answering the application and raising preliminary objections, leaves 4091 to 4099). 77 Cf. ruling of the Military Court of First Instance of the Department of Guatemala of December 11, 1995 (file with annexes to the application, annex 21, leaves 567 to 571).