to be shelved “in view of the fact that the Declaration of Abandonment [of August 6, 1997] is final and unappealable,” and she affirmed the order of January 6, 1998.138 87. On June 11, 1998, Mrs. Ramírez asserted that the case could not be shelved because her different requests to “amend the case file” pursuant to Article 67 of the Judiciary Law were still pending.139 She requested that the case file “be submitted for consideration to the Judicial Coordination Office for the Juvenile Courts in order for that Office to send the case back to the Second Juvenile Court for the adjudication of the pending petitions.”140 On July 7, 1998, the Fourth Juvenile Trial Court requested that “the pending proceedings be conducted” in accordance with various domestic provisions and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.141 ii) Motion for review following the adoption of the Ramírez boys 88. On December 17, 1998, Mr. Gustavo Tobar filed a pleading with the Juvenile Trial Court asserting that several filings still pending disposition in the case being pursued by Mrs. Ramírez.142 He stated that the courts did not allow him to intervene in the case as Osmín Tobar Ramírez’s father.143 He further indicated that “the judges have had to recuse themselves because the owner of the child-selling business is the wife of a Supreme Court Justice (…) named UMAÑA, who has recently seen her business flourish thanks to the fact that some courts have been sending children to her.”144 He asked the court to consider his pleading, and to examine “countless number of anomalies in this case file that led to these children being turned over to the aforementioned merchant.”145 89. The court dismissed the motion on the same day.146 It found that the motion was not timely filed and that Mr. Tobar “had not been a party to this case.”147 90. On February 2, 1999, Mr. Tobar filed a petition for a constitutional remedy [recurso de amparo] with the 12th Division of the Court of Appeals for Criminal, Drug, and Environmental Offenses.148 He maintained that the Juvenile Code has no established deadline for the filing of a motion for review, and therefore it was impossible for the court to rule that it was not timely filed.149 91. In addition, he argued that: 138 Annex 22. Order, Second Juvenile Trial Court, May 4, 1998. 139 Annex 4. Brief of Mrs. Flor de Maria Ramírez, June 11, 1998, to the First Juvenile Trial Court, case file 2663-96. 140 Annex 4. Brief of Mrs. Flor de Maria Ramírez, June 11, 1998, to the First Juvenile Trial Court, case file 2663-96. Annex 1.13. 141 Annex 23. Order to conduct proceedings, July 7, 1998, Fourth Juvenile Trial Court, case file. 2702-98. Annex 1.15. 142 Annex 24. Brief of Mr. Gustavo Amílcar Tobar Fajardo, December 17, 1998, to the Juvenile Trial Court for the Department of Escuintla, case file. 318-98. 143 Annex 24. Brief of Mr. Gustavo Amílcar Tobar Fajardo, December 17, 1998, to the Juvenile Trial Court for the Department of Escuintla, case file. 318-98. 144 Annex 24. Brief of Mr. Gustavo Amílcar Tobar Fajardo, December 17, 1998, to the Juvenile Trial Court for the Department of Escuintla, case file. 318-98. 145 Annex 24. Brief of Mr. Gustavo Amílcar Tobar Fajardo, December 17, 1998, to the Juvenile Trial Court for the Department of Escuintla, case file. 318-98. 146 Annex 25. Order, First Juvenile Trial Court for the Department of Escuintla, case file 318-98, December 17, 1998. Annex 47. Service of Notice, Auxiliary Court Services of Escuintla, January 4, 1998. 147 Annex 25. Order, First Juvenile Trial Court for the Department of Escuintla, case file 318-98, December 17, 1998. Annex 47. Service of Notice, Auxiliary Court Services of Escuintla, January 4, 1998. 148 Annex 26. Pleading of Gustavo Tobar, February 2, 1999. Annex 1.16. 149 Annex 26. Pleading of Gustavo Tobar, February 2, 1999. Annex 1.16. 17