45 In 1996, when the amnesty law was enacted, the defense counsel for the accused simultaneously filed two requests of extinguishment of responsibility before two different instances. The first request led to processing of two amparo remedies in face of denial of said benefit, and the second one led to processing of another amparo remedy. These amparos were found to be without merit, and two of them reached the Constitutional Court. Each of the amparo remedies was filed by the three accused. Processing of these amparo remedies lasted approximately 15 months. All the amparos filed exceeded the legal term set forth in the “Ley de Amparo y Exhibición Personal” or Amparo and Habeas Corpus Remedy Law, due to excess in processing. The “Amparo, Habeas Corpus and Constitutionality Law” foresees the possibility of in limine rejection of an amparo remedy. A simple amparo remedy would last approximately 12 days, and an amparo remedy that involves, for example, submitting evidence, would last approximately 25 days. None of the amparo remedies filed was decided within the legal term. On average, each amparo remedy lasted approximately 170 days. The courts fostered disputes over competence to avoid hearing the case regarding the accessories. The issue of whether a civil or military court should be competent was discussed four times, for which reason it went through six examining judges, two trial courts, and five different appellate courts. In Guatemala, judges are afraid to hear a case such as this one, in which high military officers are involved. One of the first doubts regarding competence was filed by Helen Mack Chang herself because the case was under military jurisdiction, but in 1996 the Congress of the Republic annulled that jurisdiction, for which reason the case fell under civil jurisdiction. As of 1999, the defense counsel began once again to discuss this issue by filing various remedies, which lasted approximately 3 years. i. Expert opinion of Mónica Rapporteur for Guatemala28 Pinto, former United Nations From 1993 until April, 1997, due to an appointment by the Secretary General of the United Nations, she worked as an independent expert to examine the human rights situation in Guatemala, with the obligation to submit yearly reports to the United Nations Human Rights Committee. She visited Guatemala four times on investigative missions. When she was appointed to this position, she became aware of the Myrna Mack Chang case. She mentioned the case in the four reports that she wrote for the United Nations Human Rights Committee. Summary executions in Guatemala, according to the expert witness, have had different profiles over time. After a stage of massive or collective summary executions, which could be included under the “Scorched Earth” policy, there were more selective summary executions. As of the 1990s, one cannot say there were 28 An Argentinean national, with a doctorate in Law; she is a tenured professor at the University of Buenos Aires and is currently a visiting professor at the School of Law at Columbia University in New York. She gave her expert opinion on Guatemalan reality in the early nineties, on her knowledge of the extra-legal execution of Myrna Mack Chang, on the deficiencies of administration of the justice in Guatemala, and on other background information pertaining to the object and purpose of the application.