74 processing of the instant case, from the state of the proceedings at the time the challenged ruling was issued.” Finally, it declared that Lucrecia Hernández Mack had desisted from her claim;155 134.64. on July 23, 2001, Juan Guillermo Oliva Carrera filed an amparo remedy against the July 5, 2001 ruling of the Third Criminal, Drug Trafficking and Environmental Crimes Trial Court, before the First Chamber of the Court of Appeals, acting as an Amparo Court.156 On July 30, the Chamber found it inadmissible with respect to granting provisional amparo or stay; on September 13, 2001, the Constitutional Court confirmed this ruling with respect to the provisional amparo;157 134.65. on September 17, 2001, defendant Oliva Carrera filed another amparo remedy before the First Chamber of the Court of Appeals, Acting as an Amparo Court, against the Third Criminal, Drug Trafficking and Environmental Crimes Trial Court because in its July 13, 2001 ruling this Court had decided to admit the evidence offered by the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the private accuser.158 The Chamber admitted said remedy for processing, and in its September 21, 2001 ruling it granted the provisional stay, temporarily suspending the July 13, 2001 ruling of the Third Criminal, Drug Trafficking and Environmental Crimes Trial Court;159 134.66. on October 3, 2001, both the regular Judges and the staff of the First Chamber of the Court of Appeals declined to continue hearing all the amparo remedies filed in this Chamber in which Helen Mack Chang intervened, “to avoid continued questioning of [the] impartiality” of the Court;160 155 Cf. ruling of the Third Criminal, Drug Trafficking and Environmental Crimes Trial Court on July 5, 2001 (file with annexes to the brief answering the application and raising preliminary objections, leaves 7672 to 7686). 156 Cf. amparo remedy before the First Chamber of the Court of Appeals on July 23, 2001 (file with annexes to the brief filed by the representatives of the victim with observations on the preliminary objections, leaves 32 to 47). 157 Cf. Order of the Constitutional Court of September 13, 2001 (file with evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case submitted by the representatives of the victim on September 5, 2003, leaves 10382 to 10383) 158 Cf. amparo remedy filed before the First Chamber of the Court of Appeals on September 17, 2001 (file with evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case submitted by the representatives of the victim on September 5, 2003, leaves 10510 to 10529). 159 Cf. Order of the First Chamber of the Court of Appeals of September 21, 2001 (file with evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case submitted by the representatives of the victim on September 5, 2003, leaves 10534 to 10535). 160 Cf. Order of the First Chamber of the Court of Appeals of September 27, 2001 (file with evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case submitted by the representatives of the victim on September 5, 2003, leaves 10552 to 10553); and Order of the Constitutional Court of October 4, 2001 (file with annexes to the brief filed by the representatives of the victim with observations on the preliminary objections, leaves 95 to 97).