63. On April 25, 2005, Mrs. V.P.C. requested that the Jinoteca District Criminal Judge speed up the process due to its extremely prolonged duration. 100 64. On August 9, 2005, the Jinoteca District Criminal Court issued a sentence denying the appeal, rejecting the allegations made by the lawyers for Mrs. V.P.C. 101 As such, the absolution of Mr. Rodríguez was upheld.102 65. With respect to the allegations of juror bribery, the District Criminal Court referred to the January 13, 2003, decision that rejected said allegation, claiming that it was not lodged in a timely manner nor was it explicitly confirmed.103 It added that the jury selection and the sentence in the first instance were both in compliance with the law.104 It maintained that “there was no action or omission whatsoever that should result in the annulation of the verdict.” Furthermore, the District Criminal Court took into account the April 25, 2000, report by the Special Prosecutor for Children and Adolescents, which indicated that there were no irregularities during the proceedings.105 66. On August 25, 2005, Deputy Prosecutor Francisco Cifuentes filed an appeal against the sentence issued by the court on August 9 of that year. 106 The lawyer for Mrs. V.P.C. also filed an appeal against the August 9, 2005, sentence.107 67. Mrs. V.P.C. stated that on September 9, 2005, she lodged a complaint with the Office of the Prosecutor for the Defense of Human Rights regarding the situation of impunity resulting from this case. 108 68. On January 17, 2007, the lawyer for Mrs. V.P.C. requested that the Northern District Appellate Court Criminal Chamber inform them of the status of the appeal filed against the August 9, 2005, sentence.109 69. On October 24, 2007, the Matagalpa Appellate Court Criminal Chamber issued a sentence denying the appeals submitted by the prosecutor, Francisco Cifuentes, and the lawyer for Mrs. V.P.C. against the August 9, 2005, decision.110 It indicated that the evidence submitted did not demonstrate that the case 100 Anexo 28. Official note from V.P.C. of April 25, 2005. Annex C to the communication from the petitioner received on February 22, 2006. Annexed to the communication from the State received on December 15, 2005. 101 Anexo 29. Sentence No. 176 of August 9, 2005. Annex E to the communication from the petitioner received on February 22, 102 Anexo 29. Sentence No. 176 of August 9, 2005. Annex E to the communication from the petitioner received on February 22, 103 Anexo 29. Sentence No. 176 of August 9, 2005. Annex E to the communication from the petitioner received on February 22, 104 Anexo 29. Sentence No. 176 of August 9, 2005. Annex E to the communication from the petitioner received on February 22, 105 Anexo 29. Sentence No. 176 of August 9, 2005. Annex E to the communication from the petitioner received on February 22, 2006. 2006. 2006. 2006.. 2006. 106 Anexo 30. Official note from Francisco Cifuentes of August 25, 2005. Annexed to the communication from the petitioner received on March 7, 2006. 107 Anexo 31. Sentence of the Northern District Appellate Court Criminal Chamber of October 24, 2007. Annexed to the communication form the petitioner received on September 2, 2008. 108 Anexo 32. Communication from the petitioner received on August 27, 2007. 109 Anexo 33. Official note to the Northern District Appellate Court Criminal Chamber of January 17, 2007. Annexed to the communication received by the petitioner on April 9, 2007. 110 Anexo 31. Sentence of the Northern District Appellate Court Criminal Chamber of October 24, 2007. Annexed to the communication form the petitioner received on September 2, 2008.