In this case, the other parties shall be notified of the order and they may object to it before the judge overseeing the investigation, pointing out the evidence that could feasibly be investigated or identifying the accused. The judge may revoke the decision, pointing out the evidence to be looked into to continue the investigation or identify the accused.60 64. The State pointed out that no objection was filed with the judge overseeing the investigation against the decision by the Public Prosecutor's Office to archive the case.61 65. On May 9, 1997, the Sixth Court of First Instance for Drug-trafficking and Crimes against the Environment issued a decision stating as follows:62 As regards the archiving requested by the Public Prosecutors' Office, you are hereby informed that in accordance with the norm cited as legal grounds,63 when identification of the accused is not achieved, archiving shall be ordered by the Public Prosecutors' Office, not the overseeing court.64 66. The State pointed out that on May 22, 1997 the Judge overseeing the case dismissed the request by the Public Prosecutors' Office to archive the file of the case.65 He did so since "the time that has elapsed since the occurrence of the deed complained of is no ground for the investigation not to continue."66 67. In its communication of June 13, 1999, the State pointed out that it had consulted the public prosecutor in the case, Jaime Rosales, on the status of the investigation process.67 The State maintained that the public prosecutor reported that "there is no evidence that may point to the participants in the deed" [sujetos activos del hecho].68 The State maintained that due to the decision by the overseeing judge in May 1997, the investigation "is continuing and new evidence is expected to be provided to permit the identification and punishment of those responsible."69 68. On December 17, 2014, the Public Prosecutors' Office sent a communication to COPREDEH stating that "there are no records of Mr. [Gómez] as either plaintiff or injured party nor is there any record of the file [MP-232-95] in the [database]."70 F. Pronouncements on violations of the human rights of trade unionists in Guatemala in the 1990s. 60 Code of Criminal Procedure of Guatemala. 61 The State’s communication of December 11, 2006. The Sixth Court of First Instance for Drug-trafficking and Crimes against the Environment issued a ruling. Attached to the State’s communication of June 16, 1997. 62 63 Articles 150, 160, 178, and 327 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Sixth Court of First Instance for Drug-trafficking and Crimes against the Environment issued a ruling. Attached to the State’s communication of June 16, 1997. 64 2015. 65 State’s communication of June 13, 1999. 66 State’s communication of June 13, 1999. 67 State’s communication of June 13, 1999. 68 State’s communication of June 13, 1999. 69 State’s communication of June 13, 1999. 70 Official Letter of the Public Prosecutors' Office (Ministerio Público). Attached to the State’s communication of February 24, 11