20 15 and 19, but these were not completed due to the absence of “the representatives of Messrs. Arrom and Martí.”102 Therefore, the evidence was not processed. 77. On February 8, 2003, the Public Prosecutor’s Office requested the definitive dismissal of the case against Javier Benjamín Cazal Elizeche, José David Schémbori and Saturnino Antonio Gamarra Acosta.103 On that same date, the public prosecutor requested the dismissal of the individual criminal complaints filed by the alleged victims, since “the factual circumstances that supposedly incriminate the defendants, did not constitute punishable acts”.104 78. For their part, on February 8 and 10, respectively, Anuncio Martí and Juan Arrom filed charges against the defendants and offered certain evidence.105 On March 28 and 31, 2003, Anuncio Martí and Juan Arrom opposed the dismissal request and requested the gathering of some evidence.106 79. On May 14, 2003, the preliminary hearing was held.107 That same day, the Judge in charge determined that the grounds for the request for definitive dismissal were not sufficient “because the lack of participation of the defendants must appear evidently and without a doubt.” She stressed that “there are various pieces of evidence [in the case] that must be discussed and analyzed in public and oral trial.”108 Consequently, it ordered that the proceedings be forwarded to the Attorney General so that he could indict or ratify the request made by the prosecutors who acted initially, as provided by the Code of Criminal Procedure.109 80. On May 27, 2003, the Deputy Prosecutor, in charge of the Office of the National Attorney General, ratified the request for dismissal presented by the prosecutors in favor of Antonio Gamarra, José David Schémbori and Javier Cazal, and considered that it was in accordance with the law to dismiss the individual criminal complaints filed against Hugo Velázquez Moreno, Julio César Fanego Arellano and Silvio Gustavo Ferreira Fernández.110 81. On June 19, 2003, Juan Arrom's lawyer filed an objection of unconstitutionality because he considered that the application of article 358 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the case went against the constitutional rights of his defendant. The aforementioned article provides that the Judge may not decree the opening of a trial if there is no accusation by the prosecution.111 On September 19, 2003, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the objection of unconstitutionality, considering that Article 358 of the Criminal Procedure Code was part of a series of provisions of the mixed accusatory criminal system in which the Public Prosecutor's Office has the function of prosecuting and the Judge of Guarantees has the task of ensuring the protection of the rights of the accused and the victim, as well as that of analyzing the evidence obtained in the investigation.112 Cf. Criminal report of January 29, 2003 (evidence file, fs. 7278 to 7280), and Proceedings record of February 13, 2002, of evidence gathered on January 30 and 31, 2002 (evidence file, f. 7296). 103 Cf. Request for dismissal from the Public Prosecutor’s Office of February 8, 2003 (evidence file, fs. 7512 and 7513). 104 Cf. Request for dismissal from the Public Prosecutor’s Office of February 8, 2003 (evidence file, f. 7467). 105 Cf. Anuncio Martí Méndez brief of February 8, 2003 (evidence file, fs. 8208 to 8220), Juan Arrom Suhurt's brief of February 10, 2003 (evidence file, fs. 1204 to 1223). 106 Cf. Anuncio Martí's brief of March 28, 2003 (evidence file, fs. 8244 to 8255), and Juan Arrom Suhurt's brief of March 31, 2003 (evidence file, fs. 8256 to 8312). 107 Cf. Record of the preliminary hearing of May 14, 2003 (evidence file, fs. 8333 to 6339). 108 Resolution No. 68 of May 14, 2003 (evidence file, f. 8340). 109 Resolution No. 68 of May 14, 2003 (evidence file, f. 8341). 110 Cf. Opinion of the State Attorney General's Office of May 27, 2003 (evidence file, fs. 8342 to 8369). 111 Cf. Brief of June 19, 2003 (evidence file, fs. 634 to 644). 112 Cf. Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of September 19, 2003 (evidence file, fs. 646 to 648). 102