34 110. In the case of Mack Chang v. Guatemala the Court ruled on the institution of the appeal for legal protection in Guatemala, expressing that: […] as derived from the text of the “Law on the Appeal for Legal Protection, Habeas corpus, and Constitutionality”, and according to the expert opinion of Henry El Khoury, the law itself places the courts of appeal under the obligation to process and rule on all appeals for legal protection filed against any judicial authority for any procedural act. Therefore, the law itself places said courts under the obligation to process any appeal for legal protection, even if it is “expressly inadmissible,” as the various remedies filed in this case were found to be.118 111. It is worth noting that in the instant case the counsel of the accused in the massacre have filed at least 33 appeals for legal protection, of which 24 were denied119 and some took up to four years to be resolved. Additionally, these decisions were later appealed before different instances, which implied that the processing of the appeal for legal protection would be extended (infra para. 114). There has been an evident delay in the processing and adjudication of those remedies, which is not compatible with Article 25(1) of the American Convention. Although the Court considers that the appeal for legal protection is an ideal remedy to protect human rights in Guatemala, its scope and lack of admissibility requirements has resulted in that in some of these cases the delay is excessive and paralyzes justice. 112. In the instant case the appeals for legal protection submitted in the internal proceeding exceeded their processing within the terms established by the law. Hence, the representatives and the Commission argued that only five of the appeals were resolved in less than one year, 19 were resolved in one to two years, four took over three years to be resolved, and one took four years and five months. 113. In this regard, witness Edgar Fernando Pérez Archila declared before this Court on the excessive length of the processing of the appeals for legal protection in the case of the Las Dos Erres massacre, in comparison to other cases of a similar nature heard at the same time, and indicated that “the average for the first instance was approximately six months[, and] the average for the second instance was approximately 320 days”120. Likewise, in her expert opinion, Ms. Claudia Paz y Paz Bailey expressed that “the average processing of the appeals for legal protection in the case of Las Dos Erres largely exceeds the [problem] of the general average processing time of appeals for legal protection”121. This situation has also been asserted by international bodies122. 118 Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala, supra note 18, para. 206. 119 From the review of the file before the Court it is inferred that four appeals for legal protection were granted, 24 were turned down, and one is pending resolution before the Constitutional Court. The documents related to the rest of the appeals for legal protection were not provided in the appendixes by the parties to the instant case. 120 In this regard, said expert indicated that “[i]n 2003 a study was performed, as well as verification by the Ombudsman Office of Guatemala, which assessed the 31 appeals submitted to that date. The average for the first instance was approximately six months, and for the second instance 320 days. This is a much longer term than the judicial custom, and in my experience as a litigation attorney in Guatemala, than the processing of appeals for legal protection in common cases.” Statement of witness Edgar Fernando Pérez Archila, rendered in the public hearing held before the Court in La Paz, Bolivia, on July 14, 2009. 121 Cf. Expert Opinion of Claudia Paz y Paz Bailey rendered before the public hearing held before the Inter-American Court in La Paz, Bolivia, on July 14, 2009. 122 See, inter alia, the Report of the UN High Commissioner of Human Rights on the activities of the office in Guatemala, A/HRC/4/49/Add.1 of February 12, 2007, para 30, which indicates that “[t]he filing of delaying appeals for legal protection continues affecting cases of transitional justice. In this regard, Bill No. 3319 on amendments to the appeal for legal protection is still pending before Congress.” Likewise, the High Commissioner “urge[d] Congress to approve […] the amendments to the Law on the Appeal for Legal Protection, Habeas corpus, and Constitutionality.”