28 54(32) On November 7, 2000 the Sectional Court of First Instance of Tela issued a conviction for the crime of possession and dealing of narcotics against the defendants, Messrs. Alfredo López Álvarez and Luis Ángel Acosta, and of acquittal with regard to Mr. Sunny Loreto Cubas, who died on June 25, 1999. The judgment was based on the testimonial description of what occurred on April 27, 1997 and on the analysis performed on May 14, 2997 on the substance seized in the arrest. The judgment convicted the defendants Luis Ángel Acosta and Alfredo López Álvarez “to serve fifteen years of imprisonment in the National Penitentiary Center of Tamara [...], prior subtraction of the time they had already served [,…] [and it imposed] a fine of one million lempiras.” Said judgment did not specify the sanction for each of the convicted parties.53 54(33) On November 16, 2000 Mr. Elvin Javier Varela Rapola, defense counsel of Messrs. Alfredo López Álvarez and Luis Ángel Acosta, in the act of notification of the judgment of November 7, 2000, presented before the Sectional Court of First Instance an application for reconsideration and additionally a motion of appeal against the conviction.54 On November 20, 2000 the Sectional Court of First Instance of Tela declared the application for reconsideration inadmissible and accepted the motion of appeal, which was forwarded to the Appellate Court of La Ceiba.55 On May 2, 2001 the Appellate Court of la Ceiba decided to declare, ex officio, the absolute nullity of the actions as of and including the ruling dated October 8, 1997 due to procedural irregularities that were “a violation of norms of obligatory compliance”, in virtue of, among others, the fact that a) in the conviction of November 7, 2000 the participation of each of the accused in the commission of the crime was not determined, and in the operative part the sentence imposed on each of them was not determined or clarified (supra para. 54(32)); b) the pieces that must make up the process were not numbered successively as per their order of presentation; c) the practice of reconstruction of the facts was requested as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case, and it was not furnished despite having set two hearings to this effect; d) there were unnecessary delays in the receipt of the statements; e) the investigation of the facts was not exhausted because the Office of the Public Prosecutor and the Judge did not present or summon the antidrug agents that carried out the operation; f) in the confrontation hearing one of the accused was sworn in, which constitutes a violation of constitutional guarantees, such as the right to a defense and the due process, and g) the parties were unduly summoned twice to hear the final judgment. This Court determined that the case be returned to the Court of origin, in order to correct the flaws mentioned for which the powers granted to the parties will survive and be considered valid “for the resulting legal effects.”56 53 Cf. judgment issued by the Sectional Court of First Instance of Tela on November 7, 2000 (dossier of appendixes to the response to the petition, volume II, folios 589 through 593), and certification of the death certificate of Sunny Loreto Cubas issued by the National Registry of People on August 30, 1999 (dossier of appendixes to the response to the petition, volume II, folio 553). 54 Cf. manuscript note of presentation of the application for reconsideration and appeal by Mr. Elvin Javier Varela Rapola on November 16, 2000 (dossier of appendixes to the response to the petition, volume II, folio 595). 55 Cf. ruling issued by the Sectional Court of First Instance of Tela on November 20, 2000 (dossier of appendixes to the response to the petition, volume II, folio 596). 56 Cf. certification of the judgment of the Appellate Court of la Ceiba on May 2, 2001 (dossier of appendixes to the response to the petition, volume II, folios 609 through 611).