21 52. On August 12, 2004, a hearing was held to allow the accused to enter his plea. The court ordered the substitute preventive measure of judicial detention, whereby Mr. Elías Aceituno Canaca was to report to the judge every fifteen days and was ordered not to leave the country. 44 53. On September 1, 2004, the Judge of the San Pedro Sula Judicial District dismissed the case against Mr. Elías A. Canaca; in his ruling the judge declared that the prosecution’s bill of indictment charging the defendant with manslaughter and dereliction of duty was dismissed. The judge hearing the case based his decision on the following observations: [N]one of the evidence introduced by the prosecution is sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Elías Aceituno Canaca is responsible for the “Wear and tear in the electrical installations in the prison, which like all material exposed to the inexorable march of time, has undergone the natural and understandable wear and tear.” This is the inference from all the evidence offered by the prosecution; this is the final conclusion to which this supervisory judge has arrived: we cannot blame the person who was in charge of the prison’s administration at the time for the wear and tear to the electrical system; we cannot speak of omissions since the defense has produced overwhelming and very solid evidence tearing apart the case brought by the Public Prosecutor’s Office. The defense produced the memorandum that the defendant, Elías Aceituno Canaca, sent to the Manager of the National Electric Power Company […], to the Public Prosecutor’s Office which, under Article 16 of its statute, is responsible for monitoring prison conditions, to the Fire Department, and to this court, even though the court does not have the authority to be able to find a solution. There are other institutions that could have and should have responded to the defendant’s request in order to prevent this fire. The National Electric Power Company, for example, was alerted on March 22 of this year, far enough in advance to have prevented the situation […] On the subject of the crime of omission, there is a duty to prevent an outcome. In this regard, according to everything said at this hearing, the conclusion is that the defendant, Elías Aceituno Canaca, was always diligent in his function as guarantor, as he has credibly established that his intention was to have the necessary measures taken to repair the prison’s electrical system. The record shows who the proper authorities were, although no tangible evidence has been produced to show their commitment to find a concrete solution […] [T]he burden of proof thus becomes the burden of disproof: the technical opinions, the testimony proposed, the prosecution’s own bill of indictment show that defendant Elías Aceituno Canaca was the true guardian of legal rights and obligations; hence, it makes no sense to blame these events on a simple citizen who did everything he could under the law and performed his duty in an effort to prevent this unfortunate outcome. 45 (The underlining and bold are in the original). 54. On September 6, 2004, the Public Prosecutor’s Office filed an appeal challenging the ruling by the Judge of the San Pedro Sula Judicial District which had ordered the case against Mr. Elías Canaca dismissed once and for all. 46 On September 22, 2004, the corresponding records were sent to the Appellate Court of the San Pedro Sula Judicial District. 47 44 The petitioners’ submissions on the merits, dated April 10, 2009. Annex 20. CD with the record of the domestic court proceedings in the case and testimony. Case 1009/04. Volume IV. Folios 1431-1435: Record of the plea that the accused Elías Aceituno Canaca entered. 45 The petitioners’ observations on the merits, dated April 10, 2009. Annex 20. CD with the record of the domestic court proceedings in the case and testimony. Case 1009/04. Volume VII. Folios 1982-1985: Definitive dismissal. 46 The petitioners’ observations on the merits, dated April 10, 2009. Annex 20. CD with the record of the domestic court proceedings in the case and testimony. Case 1009/04. Volume VII. Folios 1986-1991: Appeal entered by the Public Prosecutor’s Office. 47 The petitioners’ observations on the merits, dated April 10, 2009. Annex 20. CD with the record of the domestic court proceedings in the case and testimony. Case 1009/04. Volume VII. Folio 2002: For the record.