78. During the months of April and May 2001, the Civil Court141 received the statements of six people and three face-to-face hearings took place.142 79. On July 30, 2001, the Civil Court conducted an inspection of judicial file 1095-98, regarding the crimes of theft of lumber, damages and concealment against Messrs. Gilberto Maldonado Izaguirre and Jorge Alberto Núñez.143 80. On November 15, 2001, a judicial inspection was carried out at the regional offices of the Honduran Corporation of Forest Development (COHDEFOR) in Juticalpa, for the purpose of reviewing the record of hearings and visits to said institution.144 81. On November 21, 2001, the Judge Mario Alberto Amaya Oliva, “taking into consideration that several comments were [made] in the local press, [referring to] the fact that [he] personally [had] a direct interest in the case under investigation regarding the death of Mr. Carlos Antonio Luna and the a[t]tempted [m]urder of Silvia Gonzales, [he made] the decision to [e]xcuse [himself] from presiding this case, in addition to his having received [d]eath threats, without knowing w[here] these came from.”145 Thus, on November 29, the Supreme Court of Justice approved his request for recusal. Consequently, these proceedings were reassigned to the Catacamas Magistrate’s Criminal Court. This approval was notified the following day.146 82. On November 30, 2001, the Magistrates Criminal Court revoked the order of imprisonment issued against Jorge Chávez considering that “one by one, all the pieces of evidence that pointed to the probability of [his] possible participation had b [een] dispelled.”147 Nevertheless, on March 21, 2002, the Third Court of Appeals revoked the ruling of November 30, 2001, and noted that, “given the numerous irregularities committed in the processing of this case, particularly after a prior judgment issued by this Court on an earlier appeal that was not complied with by the Examining Judge […] until three months after he had the [c]ertification of the aforesaid ruling in his power, it is appropriate to refer this matter to the Inspector General of the Courts.”148 Mr. Jorge Chávez was sent to the 141 Cf. Statements rendered before the Civil Court by: Fredy Noel Salgado Mejía on April 23, 2001 (File of attachments to the State’s response, page 5480); Fidel Domingo Ortega on April 24, 2001 (File of attachments to the State’s response, page 5508); the defendant Jorge Chávez on May 7, 2001 (File of attachments to the State’s response, page 5537); Miguel Rafael Madrid López on May 9, 2001 (File of attachments to the State’s response, page 5575); Gloria Isabel Caballero on May 25, 2001 (File of attachments to the State’s response, page 5611) and Francisco Armando Alemán on May 25, 2001 (File of attachments to the State’s response, page 5613). 142 Cf. Face-to-face hearing of April 23, 2001, conducted between Eracles Javier Escobar and Fredy Noel Salgado Mejía (File of attachments to the State’s response, page 5483); face-to-face hearing of May 25, 2001, conducted between Jorge Chávez and Karol Vanessa Padilla (File of attachments to the State’s response, page 5605), and faceto-face hearing of May 25, 2001, conducted between Jorge Chávez and Tito Ambrosio Velásquez (File of attachments to the State’s response, page 5607). 143 Cf. Record of Inspection of June 30, 2001, issued by the Catacamas Civil Court (File of attachments to the State’s response, page 5670). 144 Cf. Record of Inspection of November 15, 2001, issued by the First Criminal Court of Juticalpa (File of attachments to the State’s response, pages 5723 and 5724). 145 Brief of November 21, 2001, addressed to the Supreme Court of Justice (File of attachments to the State’s response, page 5763). 146 Cf. Notification No. 3481-SCSJ-2001 of November 29, 2001, issued by the Secretary of the Supreme Court of Justice (File of attachments to the State’s response, pages 5764 and 5765). 147 Ruling of the Magistrates Criminal Court of November 30, 2001 (File of attachments to the State’s response, pages 5769 and 5770). 148 Cf. Ruling of the Third Court of Appeals on March 21, 2002 (File of attachments to the State’s response, pages 5791 and 5798). 27