62. On May 5, 1993 the Judge from the Second Chamber of the First Trial Court carried out a “confrontation” (careo36) between the defendants. The record of said proceeding indicates that “for the record, during this proceeding the only present are the two mentioned defendants, not their defense attorneys.”37 It is noted that the defendants did not agree “about each of the aspects already mentioned.”38 63. On May 12, 1993 the Department of Escuintla First Chamber of the First Trial Criminal Court, decided to proceed with the criminal prosecution against Roberto Girón and Pedro Castillo Mendoza for the crime of aggravated rape.39 64. The Commission notes that the crime of aggravated rape, Article 175 of the Criminal Code, established: “If with reason of or as a result of the rape, the offense results in death, the sentence of twenty to thirty years imprisonment shall be imposed. The death penalty will be sentenced if the victim is younger than ten years of age.”40 65. On June 2, 1993, Roberto Girón’s assigned defender submitted a brief expressing his view with respect to the evidence provided in the proceedings, concluding that “according to the proceedings carried out, there is a discrepancy between the statements of witnesses, captors and police report and in addition to this; nobody knows for sure that my defendant had participated in the crime (…)”41 66. On June 14, 1993, Pedro Castillo Mendoza’s assigned defender submitted his arguments during the hearing granted by the Court for an extension of five days. In his arguments he stated that his defendant is accused of aggravated rape, however “there are mitigating circumstances that modify his criminal responsibility. This because he had confessed the crime in his initial statement during the investigative phase, and in doing so, helped to clarify the crimes for which he is accused.”42 2. Conviction 67. On October 4, 1993 the First Chamber of the First Trial Criminal Court of Escuintla convicted the alleged victims for the crime of aggravated rape and sentenced them to the death penalty.43 68. In the judgment it was indicated that on June 1, 1993 the Court decided to open the proceedings for evidence gathering for a term of 28 days. A public hearing was scheduled for July 29, 1993 as well as the proceedings to hear statements from: Carlos Enrique del Cid Lopez, Juan Ernesto del Cid Tuche and Pablo de Jesús Rivera. However, this was not carried out because “when opening and revising the 36 Procedure established in Guatemalan Criminal Law, which aims to clarify the contradictory aspects of the statements of those involved in criminal proceedings. 37 Annex 5. Record of the confrontation of the defendants (careo) by Second Chamber Judge of First Trial Court of May 5, 1993. 38 Annex 5. Record of the confrontation of the defendants (careo) by Second Chamber Judge of First Trial Court of May 5, 1993. 39 Annex 6. Decision by the Department of Escuintla First chamber of the First Trial Criminal Court, May 12, 1993. 40 Decree No. 17-73, National Congress of the Republic of Guatemala, Criminal Code. 41 Annex 7. Brief submitted by Leonel Chinchilla Cristales to the Judge of the First Chamber of the First Trial Criminal Court of Escuintla proposing evidence on June 2, 1993. 42 Annex 8. Brief submitted by Edy Iván Bocanegra Conde during a hearing that took place for 5 days before the Judge of the First Chamber of the First Trial Criminal Court of Escuintla on June 14, 1993. 43 Annex 9. Judgment of the First Chamber of the First Trial Criminal Court of Escuintla, October 4, 1993. 11