unfounded the other appeals for cassation that were pending before it, thus rendering final the conviction judgment at first instance.151 98. With respect to the other members of the military patrol involved in the events, in a communication of June 7, 2005, the State said that “there are still 11 accused whose arrest and subsequent prosecution in public oral proceedings remain pending, for which reason the investigation is still open.”152 The Commission has no information regarding the legal situation of those individuals. 6. The civil suit 99. The petitioners advised that on October 4, 1996, they filed a civil suit for damages with the Second Civil Court of First Instance of the Department of Alta Verapaz.153 They requested that the accused and the State be ordered to pay 78 million quetzales.154 The suit was admitted three days later. On December 12, 1996, the court ordered 50% of the defendants' wages to be garnished.155 The petitioners said that the accused's defense subsequently filed a variety of motions to delay the proceedings, including an alleged failure to serve notice of judicial proceedings.156 100. The petitioners said that on July 1, 2002, the judge of the Court of First Instance for Civil and Tax Matters of Cobán recused himself from the case.157 On July 17, 2002, the court issued an official notice saying that it would not be possible to hold the hearing scheduled to take statements from the parties because it had recused itself. It said that the case would be referred to the court of first instance of Ixcán.158 On August 14, 2002, the soldiers from the patrol appeared before the court.159 The above information regarding the civil suit is based on information provided by the petitioners, which has not been refuted by the Guatemalan State. Commission has no information on the further development of the process. 101. In the criminal conviction handed down on July 8, 2004, the Sentencing Court for Criminal Matters, Drug Trafficking and Environmental Crimes of Alta Verapaz Department, Cobán had the following to say regarding civil liability: "this court offers no pronouncement ... on account of the fact that the relevant suit has not been brought, notwithstanding the accruing right.160 7. Harassment of the survivors of the massacre and next of kin 102. The CEH recorded that while the criminal proceeding was under way people who were wounded in the massacre and other members of the community were the targets of harassment and intimidation by persons who were not identified but suspected of being linked to the Armed Forces.161 151 Annex 34. Judgment of September 23, 2005, of the Supreme Court of Justice, Criminal Chamber, on joint appeals for cassation 9-2005, 11-2005, and 16-2005. Enclosed with the State’s communication of June 7, 2005. 152 Annex 35. State’s communication of June 7, 2005. 153 Annex 36. Petitioners' communication of February 26, 1998. 154 Annex 36. Petitioners' communication of February 26, 1998. 155 Annex 36. Petitioners' communication of February 26, 1998. 156 Annex 36. Petitioners' communication of February 26, 1998. 157 Annex 37. Petitioners' communication of February 26, 1998. 158 Annex 37. Petitioners' communication of February 26, 1998. 159 Annex 37. Petitioners' communication of February 26, 1998. 160 Annex 38. Extract of the judgment of the Sentencing Court for Criminal Matters, Drug Trafficking, and Environmental Crimes, July 8, 2004. Enclosed with the State's communication of July 27, 2004. 161 Massacre. Annex 2. CEH, Guatemala: Memory of Silence, Volume VI, Illustrative Cases, Annex 1, Illustrative Case No. 3: Xamán 22