64. The CEH also determined that owing to the fact that the proceeding was initially under the military criminal jurisdiction, the firearms carried by the patrol members during the events were in the possession of the Army for six weeks before being handed over to the Public Prosecution Service, and then only after repeated requests.68 The State reported that the military personnel involved in the events were immediately detained after the incident and taken to the Remand Center of the National Police Second Corps in Jalapa Department.69 65. On October 10, 1995, the director of MINUGUA released the "Preliminary conclusions following verification of the events of October 5, 1995 at the returnee community Aurora Octubre 8.”70 The report indicated that “members of the Army tried to exonerate those responsible.”71 66. In mid-October 1995, then-president De León accepted the resignation of the Minister of National Defense and dismissed the commander of Military Zone No. 21, to which the patrol involved in the incident reported.72 67. Rigoberta Menchú Tum, one of the petitioners in this case, became a joint plaintiff in the proceeding and on October 31, 1995, submitted a brief to the military tribunal, arguing that it lacked jurisdiction, independence, and impartiality.73 Ms. Menchú submitted that the facts should be heard in a criminal court and not in the military criminal jurisdiction.74 She also questioned the various flaws and irregularities in the above-mentioned procedures.75 68. On November 2, 1995, the Military Court of First Instance of the Department of Jalapa declared Ms. Menchú's request unfounded and that it had jurisdiction to hear the case.76 The CEH concluded that the military judge of Jalapa who heard the case was clearly biased towards the positions argued by the counsels for the defense, whom he consulted on a variety of procedural decisions.77 69. Ms. Menchú challenged the aforesaid ruling of the military court.78 The Fifth Division of the Court of Appeals pronounced on the challenge, finding the offenses committee to be common in nature and ordering that the case be transferred to the Second Court of First Instance of Cobán, Alta Verapaz.79 The petitioners said that the Criminal Court of First Instance of the Department of Alta Verapaz took up the case near the end of January 1996.80 68 Annex 2. CEH, Guatemala: Memory of Silence, Volume VI, Illustrative Cases, Annex 1, Illustrative Case No. 3: Xamán Massacre. 69 Annex 8. State’s communication of December 6, 1995. 70 Annex 2. CEH, Guatemala: Memory of Silence, Volume VI, Illustrative Cases, Annex 1, Illustrative Case No. 3: Xamán Massacre. 71 Annex 2. CEH, Guatemala: Memory of Silence, Volume VI, Illustrative Cases, Annex 1, Illustrative Case No. 3: Xamán Massacre. 72 Annex 2. CEH, Guatemala: Memory of Silence, Volume VI, Illustrative Cases, Annex 1, Illustrative Case No. 3: Xamán Massacre. Annex 9. Official letter from Rigoberta Menchú, October 31, 1995. Enclosed with the petitioners' communication received on November 16, 1995. 73 74 Annex 9. Official letter from Rigoberta Menchú, October 31, 1995. Enclosed with the petitioners' communication received on November 16, 1995. 75 Annex 9. Official letter from Rigoberta Menchú, October 31, 1995. Enclosed with the petitioners' communication received on November 16, 1995. 76 Annex 10. Order of the Military Court of First Instance of the Department of Jalapa in Criminal Case No. 028-95. Enclosed with the petitioners' communication received on November 16, 1995. 77 Annex 2. CEH, Guatemala: Memory of Silence, Volume VI, Illustrative Cases, Annex 1, Illustrative Case No. 3: Xamán Massacre. 78 Annex 2. CEH, Guatemala: Memory of Silence, Volume VI, Illustrative Cases, Annex 1, Illustrative Case No. 3: Xamán Massacre. 79 Annex 2. CEH, Guatemala: Memory of Silence, Volume VI, Illustrative Cases, Annex 1, Illustrative Case No. 3: Xamán Massacre. 80 Annex 11. Petitioners' communication received on September 10, 1996. 15