75. On February 21, 2001, the Civil Court asked the Head of Division and Migration Policy to issue an immigration alert against the accused Jorge Chávez, Ítalo Iván Lemus, Marcos Morales and Wilfredo de Jesús Pérez, in order to prevent their departure from the country and thereby avoid the legal process against them.128 On the same day, the Civil Court issued an arrest warrant against the accused Ítalo Iván Lemus, Marcos Morales and Wilfredo de Jesús Pérez.129 76. On March 21, 2001, a warrant was issued for the arrest of Jorge Chávez.130 However, the accused made a voluntary appearance before the Civil Court on May 7, 2001,131 and rendered a preliminary statement.132 Given the Civil Court’s inability to determine the culpability or involvement of the accused, the Court ordered his conditional release. 133 In response, Prosecutor Menjívar filed applications of reconsideration and appeal 134 as a result of which on June 26, the Third Court of Appeals revoked the ruling of May 7. 135 Thus, on August 2, the Civil Court issued a new warrant for the arrest of Jorge Chávez,136 who was subsequently detained on November 5, 2001,137 through a new voluntary appearance and an extension of his preliminary statement.138 77. On April 20, 2001, the Special Prosecutor for the Environment submitted to the Civil Court the transcript of the complaint 068-98 of February 28, 1998, filed by Mr. Luna López against the companies, “PROFOFI,” “IMARA” and “La Fosforera” for illegal forest exploitation.139 According to the press report, the Court noted that the then-Congressman Lincoln Figueroa and Mr. José Ángel Rosa were owners of the company “PROFOFI”140 (supra paras. 27 and 29). 2000 (File of attachments to the State’s response, page 5385) and Miguel Ángel Cruz Pacheco on July 5, 2000 (File of attachments to the State’s response, page 5413). 127 Cf. Face-to-face hearing on May 4, 2000 held between Messrs. Eliseo Oviedo and Jorge Núñez (File of attachments to the State’s response, page 5390) and face-to-face hearing of May 17, 2000 conducted between Doris Liliana Herrera Asencio and Jorge Núñez (File of attachments to the State’s response, page 5410). 128 5400). Cf. Request for immigration alert of February 21, 2001 (File of attachments to the State’s response, page 129 Cf. Arrest warrant issued on February 21, 2001 (File of attachments to the State’s response, pages 5402 and 5403). 130 Cf. Arrest warrant issued on March 21, 2001 (File of attachments to the State’s response, page 5453). 131 Cf. Investigation statement of Jorge Chávez rendered on May 7, 2001 (File of attachments to the State’s response, page 5535). 132 5547). 133 5548). Cf. Ruling of the Catacamas Civil Court of May 7, 2001 (File of attachments to the State’s response, page Cf. Ruling of the Catacamas Civil Court of May 7, 2001 (File of attachments to the State’s response, page 134 Cf. Application for reconsideration and subsidiary appeal of May 8, 2001 (File of attachments to the State’s response, page 5562). 135 5618). 136 5621). Cf. Ruling of the Third Court of Appeals of June 26, 2001 (File of attachments to the State’s response, page Cf. Ruling of the Catacamas Civil Court of August 2, 2001 (File of attachments to the State’s response, page 137 Cf. Ruling of the Catacamas Civil Court of November 5, 2001 (File of attachments to the State’s response, page 5701). 138 Cf. Investigation statement of Jorge Chávez rendered on November 5, 2001, before the Catacamas Civil Court (File of attachments to the State’s response, page 5699). 139 Cf. Transcript of Complaint 068-98 of February 28, 1998, filed by Mr. Luna López (File of attachments to the State’s response, page 5487). 140 Cf. Article published in the newspaper El Heraldo on March 7, 1998, supra. 26