179. This Court has noted that in the separate investigation against Jorge Chávez, a judgment was handed down on September 10, 2004, absolving him of all charges. 276 On April 25, 2005, the Third Court of Appeals revoked this judgment and sentenced Mr. Chávez to 17 years’ imprisonment for the murder of Mr. Luna López and the punishment of seven years and two months for the crime of attempted murder against Mrs. Silvia Gonzales. 277 Subsequently, on June 16, 2006, the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the appeal in favor of Jorge Chávez, absolving him of all charges,278 concluding that: “the evidence provided to demonstrate the guilt of the accused [was] not sufficient to undermine his constitutionally guaranteed innocence. This evidence [was] sufficient to issue a remand order where probability, not certainty, was required, but it is not sufficient to hand down a conviction, since this requires certainty beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s involvement in the crime. If doubt prevails, it should be interpreted to his benefit, for which it is appropriate to rule on an acquittal in his favor.” 180. With respect to the acquittal ruling, neither the Commission nor the representatives alleged the existence of evident irregularities, serious defects or fraudulent res judicata.279 181. As to the accused José Ángel Rosa, on March 26, 2007, a final acquittal was ruled in his favor.280 This decision was overturned by the Third Court of Appeals on November 1, 2007, and a new remand order was issued given the existence of evidence against him in this case.281 On September 23, 2008, an appeal against that decision was dismissed. On July 30, 2008, the Catacamas Civil Court was asked to issue a final acquittal in the case against José Ángel Rosa, given that he was murdered in front of his house on Monday, June 30, 2008. For this reason, the Court confirms that it was not possible for the State to establish the possible responsibility of this defendant, who had threatened Mr. Luna López and was identified by the State in its final written brief as the main perpetrator of the crime (supra para. 151). c) Other presumed perpetrators 276 Cf. Acquittal of Jorge Chávez issued by Catacamas Civil Court on September 10, 2004, which indicated that “the Prosecutor [r]epresenting the Public Prosecutor’s Office, [as] well as the Private Prosecutor, at no time during the trial proposed or voided the evidence through which it could be demonstrated with certainty that […] Jorge […] Chávez [had] acted as organizer [paying] the amounts of [fifty or ten] thousand lempiras to take the life of the now deceased Carlos Antonio Luna López” (File of attachments to the Report on Merits, page 671). 277 Cf. Judgment of the Third Court of Appeals of April 25, 2005, which ruled that “even though it is certain that the case pending has not produced evidence indicating the accused Jorge […] Chávez [as] author of the acts attributed to him, it is no less certain that if there are sufficient deeds or indications that, examined together, permit the Court, through a reasoned thought process and following the rules of sound judgment, to arrive with certainty at the conclusion that […] the accused Jorge Adolfo Chávez was the person who, together with others planned the murder of Carlos Luna, sending Oscar Aurelio Rodríguez (El Machetío) with others to carry out the act” (File of attachments to the final written arguments, pages 9127 to 9129). 278 Cf. Judgment of Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, Appeal for Dismissal No. 152-2005 of June 16, 2006 (File of attachments to the final written arguments, pages 9142 and 9143). 279 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle et al. v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2004. Series C, No. 117, para. 131 and Case of Nadege Dorzema et al., para. 194. 280 Cf. Ruling on final dismissal of case issued by the Catacamas Civil Court on March 26, 2007, which ruled that “the defendant Oscar Aurelio Rodríguez, even though he assured that he had been hired to commit the unlawful crime, never provided credible evidence to support his claim [and that] no link between the threats made by José Ángel Rosa Hernández and the death of Mr. Carlos Antonio Luna López exist[ed]” (File of attachments to the State’s response, pages 6053 and 6054). 281 Cf. Ruling issued by the Third Court of Appeals on November 1, 2007, which decreed that at “at this procedural stage no degree of certainty was [required] regarding the participation of the accused, the probability of his involvement in the criminal event being sufficient,” (File of attachments to the final written arguments, page 6073) and a new remand order was issued (File of attachments to the final written arguments, page 6074). 55