18 54. According to information presented to the Commission, on the sixth day of the trial, the “querellante adhesiva” alleged “manifest bias” and requested that the Trial Court recuse itself. The trial was suspended until the following day, after another claim raised by the PPS. The recusal was declared “out of order” and then a judge of the Trial Court recused herself from continuing to hear the case, for having her impartiality doubted. Her excuse was rejected by the President of that Court. On June 8, 1998, the “querellante adhesiva” presented a new request of recusal in the belief that, on the basis of the excuse, there was “manifest hostility.”83 It is not reported how the second recusal was resolved, 84 but the proceedings and the renewal of the public trial continued, as will be explained (infra para. 57). 55. On September 7, 1998, the petitioners informed the Commission that it had learned that “a Magistrate of the Court […] involved in the case known as the ‘Xamán case,’ was being extorted and threatened.” They also claimed that a “judge who was a member of the Court” had been transferred and an “alternate judge” had been named to replace her.85 56. By communication of October 12, 1998, the Special Prosecutor assigned to the case presented his resignation, effective November 2. According to information sent to the Commission, he alleged actions that denoted a lack of “institutional support” to continue the case.86 The CEH maintained that, in October 1998, the Special Prosecutor declared that staff of the PPS did not provide the support that was essential to conduct the necessary investigations and that, moreover, he had been subjected to threats and intimidations.87 On October 27, 1998, a new “Special Prosecutor” was named.88 57. On November 25, 1998, the public trial was resumed89 and it continued until August of the following year (infra para. 59). During that lapse, different motions and recourses were presented and resolved.90 58. On January 6, 1999, Rigoberta Menchú withdrew as “querellante adhesiva” because she believed that the proceedings did not meet the standards of due process.91 which the “querellante adhesiva” responded that that was an obligation of the State. (Cf. Communication of the petitioners of March 23, 1998, addressed to the Commission and the accompanying documentation, supra.) 83 Cf. Communication of the petitioners of August 10, 1998, addressed to the Commission (evidence file, annex 22 to the Merits Report, fs. 318 to 323). 84 The petitioners informed the Commission that, on July 23, 1998, they were notified that “the Tribunal would consist of judges of the Tribunal of Salama.” They also indicated that as of August 8, 1998 “the respective paperwork had not yet begun” regarding the recusal presented on June 8th of that year (Cf. Communication of the petitioners of August 10, 1998, addressed to the Commission, supra.) 85 Communication of the petitioners of September 7, 1998, addressed to the Commission (evidence file, proceedings before the Commission, fs. 1960 to 1961). 86 On October 14, 1998, the petitioners remitted to the Commission a copy of the letter of resignation signed by the Prosecutor, in which he alleged, among other considerations, problems with the payment of travel expenses, lack of response to a request to meet with the Prosecutor General and reduction of personnel. Cf. Communication of the petitioners to the Commission of October 14, 1998 and annex (evidence file, proceedings before the Commission, fs. 1943 to 1948). The State also informed the Commission of this fact (cf. Communication of the State of December 1, 1998 (evidence file, annex 23 to the Merits Report, fs. 325 and 326)). The State also claimed that the Prosecutor did receive “institutional support.” 87 Cf. CEH, Guatemala: Memory of Silence, supra, Volume VI, Illustrative Cases, Annex 1, Illustrative Case 3: Xamán Massacre, p. 42. 88 Cf. Communication of the State of December 1, 1998, addressed to the Commission, supra. 89 Cf. Communication of the State of December 1, 1998, addressed to the Commission, supra. 90 Cf. Verification of the debate of November 25, 1998, supra. 91 Cf. Communication of the petitioners of March 4, 1999, addressed to the Commission (evidence file, annex 25 to the Merits Report, fs. 703 to 767) and verification of the debate of November 25, 1998, supra. The