29 104. Once summary proceedings had been concluded by the Second Criminal Trial Court, the Supreme Court appointed the Third Criminal Sentencing Court to continue hearing the proceeding. 105. This court opened criminal proceedings against Néstor Fonseca López, National Police Force agent, Samuel Rocael Valdez Zúñiga, at that time former agent of the same police force, and Rosa Trinidad Morales Pérez, and formulated charges against them for five crimes of homicide. 106. The Joint Operations Center of the General Directorate of the National Police Force advised the court that, agent Néstor Fonseca López had not been assigned any duty by this service on June 25 and 26, 1990. 107. In the order calling for evidence, the Third Criminal Sentencing Court required the following evidence to be collected, in response to the request of the Office of the Attorney-General and the defense: statements of numerous witnesses and a “judicial inspection with reconstruction of the facts” (capital letters in the original), and to this end requested the presence of the defendants and the witnesses. 108. In the same order, the court refused to allow collection of the following evidence that had been requested: personal identification of the three defendants and preparation of authenticated reports on the shifts and schedules when Néstor Valdez Zúñiga commenced and finished duty, and on whether he left the arm issued to him in the armory when he went off duty. 109. Furthermore, the court kept silent on the Office of the Attorney-General’s request that, in compliance with an “order requiring additional steps to be taken”, a medico-dental identification of Néstor Fonseca López should be conducted. 110. The court subsequently rejected the Office of the Attorney-General’s request that a new date should be set to conduct the “reconstruction of the facts”, already required in the order calling for evidence, but not carried out; when rejecting this request, the court stated that “if it was necessary, it [would] issue an order requiring additional steps to be taken”. 111. In its final argument, the Office of the Attorney-General requested that a verdict of guilty should be pronounced against the male defendants and that the following measures should be taken under an “order requiring additional steps to be taken”: a) medico-dental identification of the male defendants to determine if they had the gold crowned tooth mentioned by some witnesses; b) personal identification of Néstor Valdez Zúñiga by María Eugenia Rodríguez; and c) request for information from the National Police Force about the arms that the male defendants carried and if they carried them on June 25 and 26, 1990, also indicating whether they were “off duty” and also if they had handed in their respective equipment. 112. In its judgment of December 26, 1991, the court established the following, with regard to the testimonial evidence collected: in the evaluation of evidence, the statements of MATILDE REYNA MORALES, GARCIA, ANA MARIA CONTRERAS and ROSA CARLOTA SANDOVAL are not taken into consideration because as the mothers of ANSTRAUM AMAN VILLAGRAN MORALES, HENRY GIOVANNI CONTRERAS and JULIO ROBERTO CAAL SANDOVAL, respectively, they are subject to total disqualification.