in the incident "there was no excessive use of force [or] orders from superiors, given that the actions of the patrol were acts separate and independent from the military hierarchy.”127 88. On August 23, 1999, the special prosecutor filed an appeal against the judgment with the 14th Division of the Court Of Appeals.128 The petitioners said that the Public Prosecution Service alleged that the court "committed fundamental defects by its disregard, misinterpretation, and erroneous enforcement of the law.”129 Specifically, it asked the Division to void the judgment and issue a new one convicting the soldiers of the crimes of extrajudicial execution and attempted extrajudicial execution.130 89. On December 6, 1999, the 14th Division of the Court of Appeals admitted the appeal filed.131 According to information but provided by the parties, the Division voided the judgment at first instance and convicted 10 soldiers,132 not including the officer who had commanded the patrol, of the crimes of murder and grievous bodily harm.133 The Division sentenced them to 12 years in prison (nine years for the crime of murder convertible to a fine, and three years for the crime of grievous bodily harm), all convertible to a fine at five quetzales a day.134 The Division decided to acquit the other members of the patrol.135 With respect to the acquitted soldiers, the state said that "the division found that inasmuch as it was not proved that they were issued any order or that the weapons that they were carrying were discharged, it was appropriate to acquit them and order their immediate release."136 90. On April 12, 2000, following a cassation appeal filed by the special prosecutor, the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice annulled the Division's judgment.137 It also ordered new oral proceedings and the arrest of the 15 accused who were acquitted.138 91. The petitioners said that in May 2000 the case was referred to the Sentencing Court of Cobán, which did not execute the arrest warrants.139 They said that the accused's defense presented various applications for constitutional relief and motions for recusal against the members of the court, all of which were refused.140 92. The State said that the oral proceedings began on June 3, 2003.141 On July 8, 2004, the Sentencing Court for Criminal Matters, Drug Trafficking and Environmental Crimes of Alta Verapaz 127 Annex 26. Judgment of August 12, 1999, of the Sentencing Court for Criminal Matters, Drug Trafficking, and Environmental Crimes of the Department of Alta Verapaz. Received on May 10, 2000. 128 Annex 27. Petitioners’ communication of July 26, 2002. Annex 28. State’s communication of May 24, 2004. 129 Annex 27. Petitioners’ communication of July 26, 2002. 130 Annex 27. Petitioners’ communication of July 26, 2002. 131 Annex 27. Petitioners’ communication of July 26, 2002. Annex 28. State’s communication of May 24, 2004. 132 Annex 27. Petitioners’ communication of July 26, 2002. Annex 28. State’s communication of May 24, 2004. 133 Annex 27. Petitioners’ communication of July 26, 2002. Annex 28. State’s communication of May 24, 2004. 134 Annex 27. Petitioners’ communication of July 26, 2002. Annex 28. State’s communication of May 24, 2004. 135 Annex 27. Petitioners’ communication of July 26, 2002. Annex 28. State’s communication of May 24, 2004. 136 Annex 28. State’s communication of May 24, 2004. 137 Annex 27. Petitioners’ communication of July 26, 2002. Annex 28. State’s communication of May 24, 2004. 138 Annex 27. Petitioners’ communication of July 26, 2002. Annex 28. State’s communication of May 24, 2004. 139 Annex 27. Petitioners’ communication of July 26, 2002. 140 Annex 27. Petitioners’ communication of July 26, 2002. 141 Annex 28. State’s communication of May 24, 2004. 20