16 43. By communication of May 29, 1996, the Prosecutor of the PPS presented an accusation before the Judge for Criminal Matters, Drug Trafficking and Environmental Crimes of Alta Verapaz (hereinafter, “Judge of Alta Verapaz”).65 44. On May 30 and 31, 1996, the Judge of Alta Verapaz lifted the order of preventive detention of eight members of the military patrol. 66 45. On October 14, 1996, the Twelfth Chamber of the Court of Appeals revoked the liberty […] of seven members of the Army,” who were again detained on November 7, 1996.67 46. By communication of November 12, 1996, the “querellante adhesiva” joined, with modifications, “the accusation presented by the Public Prosecutor Service” and the “petition to open proceedings.”68 47. After dealing with different recourses,69 on May 7, 1997 the Trial Court for Criminal Matters, Drug Trafficking and Environmental Crimes of the Department of Alta Verapaz (hereinafter “Trial Court”) opened the trial, which was expanded one week later.70 48. Between May 19 and November 20, 1997, various recourses were presented and and several decisions were taken.71 49. According to information that the Commission reported that it had received, at the end of 1997 the judicial record was misplaced for approximately two months, but was subsequently found.72 65 Cf. Accusation of the Prosecutor of the PPS of May 29, 1996 (evidence file, proceedings before the Commission, fs. 4175 to 4243). According to the CEH, the PPS presented the accusation on June 29, 1996 (cf. CEH, Guatemala: Memory of Silence, supra, Volume VI, Illustrative Cases, Annex 1, Illustrative Case 3: Xamán Massacre). 66 This act was mentioned in paragraph 72 of the Merits Report as one that the Commission considered “proven,” which was not disputed by the parties. The Commission, as proof of that act, remitted the documents that it marked as “Decisions of the Sentencing Court, of May 30 and 31, 1996,” a copy of which was included as annex 14 to the Merits Report (evidence file, fs. 212 to 215). It is, however, illegible. 67 Cf. Report of the Government of Guatemala to the Commission of May 24, 2004 (evidence file, annex 28 to the Merits Report, fs. 927 to 931). 68 Accusation presented by the “querellante adhesiva” of November 12, 1992 (evidence file, proceedings before the Commission, fs. 4246 to 4289). The petitioners informed the Commission that the complainant and the PPS presented a complaint about the actions of the judge, who in September 1996 had been removed from the case by decision of the Supreme Court (cf. Communication of the petitioners of September 10, 1996, addressed to the Inter-American Court, supra). 69 According to the information presented by the petitioners to the Commission, in August 1996 the defense presented an action of unconstitutionality, claiming, among others, the non-applicability of the figure of “extrajudicial execution.” The judge recused himself from hearing the appeal and forwarded it to a higher court, which returned it to the judge, with an indication that he hear the matter. The judge forwarded the issue to the Supreme Court, raising doubts as to whether he had jurisdiction to hear it. The Supreme Court returned the matter to the judge, accepting what had been decided by the appeals court. The judge dismissed the arguments of the defense but suspended the proceedings until the appeal of the defense had been resolved. By March 1997, the defense had presented various appeals of amparo. (Cf. Communication of the petitioners to the Commission of March 7, 1997 (evidence file, proceedings before the Commission, fs. 2103 to 2109). The communication referred to the judge, without being more specific.). 70 Cf. Documents annexed to the communication of the petitioners of February 26, 1998, addressed to the Commission (evidence file, proceedings before the Commission, fs. 2062 to 2071). 71 Cf. Documents annexed to the communication of the petitioners of February 26, 1998, addressed to the Commission, supra. 72 In paragraph 75 of the Merits Report, among the facts that the Commission deemed “proven,” is that the petitioners informed on that fact.