declared null and void all judicial actions taken since the decision of October 8, 1997, opening the plenary trial. Moreover, it ordered the case to be returned to the court of first instance, to correct the errors indicated in that resolution. The operative portion of the court resolution indicates: In the present case, neither the public prosecutor who appointed the narcotics agents who carried out the operation, nor the judge of first instance took the pains to summon those persons to their offices, and were content to rely upon the statement of a journalist who did not witness the seizure of the drug, which means that the investigation into the facts was not completed. Moreover, during the confrontation hearing, the accused was forced to testify under oath, all of which constitutes a violation of constitutional guarantees to the right of defense and due process.” The resolution adds “that the foregoing procedural irregularities constitute a violation of compulsory standards, the penalty for which is absolute nullity of proceedings, which this tribunal is obliged to declare ex officio. 5 12. The resolution of the Court of Appeals of La Ceiba returned the case to the indictment stage, which means that the victim has been in preventive custody since April 27, 1997, until today, or 56 months, without completion of indictment proceedings, nor has his guilt been demonstrated in the crime of which he is accused. On July 20, 2001, according to additional information from the Petitioner, an appeal for habeas corpus 6 was brought before the Court of Appeals of La Ceiba on behalf of the victim, but this was declared out of order on July 23, 2001. 13. With respect to the precautionary measures requested on behalf of the victim, on March 23, 2001, the Petitioner, in her observations to the response of the State, declared that the transfer of Mr. López Alvarez from the Tela Penal Center to the Cortes Center was arbitrary. She also indicated that in 1999 a complaint had been brought before the Honduran Committee on Human Rights (CODEH), because the Director of the Tela Penal Center, Mr. Nasir López, prohibited the victim from speaking in Garífuna with his family when they visited him, noting that by using this language he could transmit information to denounce the arbitrary measures that had been committed against the prisoners. The Petitioner states that the events of March 22, 2001, represented a reprisal by the head of the penal center, who had ordered the “Mara 18”7 to attack the prisoners because they had organized a Committee for the Defense of Prisoners (CODIN), of which Mr. López Alvarez was vice president. 14. The Petitioner maintains that her petition is admissible, because of the exceptions to the requirements for exhaustion of domestic remedies and the time limit for submitting a petition, provided in Article 2(a) and (b) of the Convention. B. The State 15. On April 24, 2001, the State sent the Commission its response to the petition and the application for precautionary measures. 16. With respect to the petition, the State declared that Mr. López Alvarez was in custody for the crime of possessing and trafficking in narcotics, a crime which according to Honduran legislation did not allow for provisional release. With respect to the process, it reported that the sentence of the Tela court (file 2852-2001) convicting Mr. López to 15 years imprisonment and payment of a fine of one million lempiras, was appealed to the Court of Appeals of the city of La Ceiba, and that it was pending decision by that tribunal, which must either confirm the sentence or overturn it on legal grounds. Finally, the State declared that in the present case all guarantees covered by the right to legitimate defense had been observed.8 5 6 7 8 Resolution of the Court of Appeals of La Ceiba, dated May 2, 2001. Document submitted by the Petitioner, received August 23, 2001. A gang of delinquents. Communication from the State received on April 23, 2001. 3