and archive the case and, five days later, summoned E.K. to appear on the 19th of the following month.199 On November 11, 2019, the defense of E.K. filed an appeal of revocation and further appeal against the decision of November 1, 2019.200 On November 14, 2019, the Special Prosecutor argued that the matter appealed was governed by res judicata and that E.K. should be summoned to declare and the relevant “measures should be taken” with respect to those who defended him by using technicalities.201 On November 18, 2019, the acting judge reaffirmed her decision and remitted the matter to the Tribunal of Criminal Appeals.202 On August 19, 2020, the Tribunal confirmed the decision of November 1, 2019.203 165. On February 4, 2021, J.R. and J.G requested that the proceedings be suspended and that they be closed and archived due to prescription.204 On May 7, 2021, the judge denied the request of prescription and decided to continue the “investigation of the principal record.”205 However, in view of the appeals of unconstitutionality of J.R., on July 14, 2021 the proceedings were suspended and were transferred to the Supreme Court (supra para. 72). The Inter-American Court does not have information on whether those requests have been resolved. 166. This shows that a request to apply the rule of prescription, filed after April 7, 2016, was responsible for a delay of around two years until its rejection in May 2018. The accused again requested the application of prescription in October 2019, which was definitively resolved in August 2020, some 10 months later. Thus, there was a delay of more than three years in processing two requests of prescription. Moreover, the second request repeated one that, in substance, had been rejected. 167. During that period, the same accused presented an objection of unconstitutionality, the processing of which occurred between November 2018 and August 2019, in other words, during nine months. Cf. Decrees 3518/2019 and 3578/2019 of the acting judge, of November 1 and 6, 2019, respectively, and “remarks” of November 7 (evidence file, files remitted by the State, fs. 7101 to 7104, 7132 and 7134, respectively). 199 Cf. Brief of the defense of the accused of the filing of the remedies of revocation and further appeal, of November 11, 2019 (evidence file, files remitted by the State, fs. 7147 to 7160). 200 Cf. Brief of the Special Prosecutor, No. 372, of November 14, 2019 (evidence file, file remitted by the State, f. 7163). 201 Cf. Decree 3714/2019 of the acting judge, of November 18, 2019 (evidence file, files remitted by the State, f. 7165). 202 Cf. Judgment 489/2020 of the Appeals Tribunal of August 19, 2020 (evidence file, files remitted by the State, fs. 7295 to 7305). Previously, on December 19, 2019, E.K. appeared to testify, but after the hearing began his attorney advised him on the inappropriateness of his testimony due to the pending resolution of the issue of prescription and, therefore, the accused refused to continue (cf. Minutes of the inquiry of December 19, 2019 (evidence file, files remitted by the State, fs. 7175 and 7176)). 203 Cf. Brief with request of “suspension of proceedings, closing and archiving the case due to prescription,” presented by J.R. and the representation of J.G. on February 4, 2021 (evidence file, files remitted by the State, fs.7422 to 7431). 204 Cf. Decree 274/2021 of the acting judge of May 7, 2021 (evidence file, files remitted by the State, fs. 7422 to 7431). 205 45