proceedings ha[d] been conducted abnormally, with the judge failing to guarantee due process, to the detriment of the parties."125 She based those statements on the following grounds for annulment: a) that Mrs. Acosta was simultaneously taking part in the proceedings in two capacities; b) that there was no record of Mrs. Acosta defendant´s statement and that she had been tried in absentia despite the fact that the Court knew where she was living; and c) the appeal had been declared void when the deadline for defraying expenses of photocopying the case file had not expired.126 61. On January 13, the Public Prosecutor´s Office indicted Wilberth Ochoa - who had already been detained by the Chinandega police - charging him as an alleged perpetrator of the murder of Mr. García Valle.127 On January 22, 2003, the Assistant Prosecutor submitted evidence to the District Civil and Criminal Court Judge relating to Wilberth Ochoa's participation in the murder of Mr. García Valle128. 62. With writs dated January 24, 2003 and February 4, 2003, 129 Mrs. Acosta's legal representative requested for the third time that the proceedings be annulled from the court order of April 19, 2002 onwards.130 On March 4, 2003, the District Civil and Criminal Court declared the second hearing application submitted by the Prosecutor's Office and Mrs. Acosta's legal representative to be without merit, because the alleged [grounds for] annulment occurred during the preliminary investigations phase.131 63. On March 24, 2003, the interlocutory judgment of May 13, 2003 became final, granting dismissal of proceedings against Peter Tsokos, Peter Martínez, Charles Presida, and María Luisa Acosta132. 64. On September 23, 2003, the Criminal Division of the Appeals Tribunal (Sala de lo Penal del Tribunal de Apelación) refused to hear the fourth incidental motion filed by María Luisa Acosta on June 9, 125 Appendix 100. Second hearing writ (Escrito de segundas vistas] of the District Civil and Criminal Court of the In. By operation of law, Bluefields, December 24, 2002. Trial court file, folios 184 to 270. Appendix to the petitioners’ communication of July 13, 2007. 126 Appendix 33. Second hearing writ (Escrito de segundas vistas] to the District Civil and Criminal Court of the In. By operation of law, Bluefields, December 24, 2002. Trial court file, folios 184 to 270. Appendix to the petitioners’ communication of July 13, 2007. 127 Appendix 33. Indictment of Wilberth José Ochoa for the crime of murder, Public Prosecution Service - Atlántico Sur Autonomous Region, January 13, 2013. Trial court file, folios 275 to 277. Appendix to the petitioners’ communication of July 13, 2007. 128 The evidence included the statement by Wilberth Ochoa, in which he stated that he had accompanied Iván Argüello on his trips to Bluefields during Holy Week and at the time Mr. García Valle. WAS KILLED. He also said that after 7 p.m. on April 8, 2002, he had heard a gunshot and, a second later, Iván Argüello had coe to the room and told him that if they didn't leave there would be problems. For that reason, he suspected Iván Argüello of having murdered Mr. García Valle, but did not know why. Appendix 38. Statement by Wilberth Ochoa (under investigation) to the National Police in Chinandega, January 11, 2003. Trial court file, folio 306. Appendix to the petitioners’ communication of July 13, 2007. See also Appendix 119. Writ by the Assistant Prosecutor to the In (by operation of law) District Civil and Criminal Court Judge, January 22, 2003. Trial court file, folios 299 to 312. Appendix to the petitioners’ communication of July 13, 2007. 129 Regarding this last writ, Mrs. Acosta's legal representative explains that it is supplemental to the one submitted on January 24, 2003. Appendix 120. Writ presented by Mrs. Acosta's representative in which he again requested annulment of th e proceedings, February 4, 2003. Trial court file, folios 333 and 334. Appendix to the petitioners’ communication of July 13, 2007. 130 Specifically, that the appeal against the judgment of May 13, 2002 had been declared void, "rendering it impossible […] to meet the requirement to deliver paper or money to photocopy the case file," and without considering that voiding for all parties to criminal matters had been repealed; and b) the dual status of María Luisa Acosta based on a mere remark by Peter Martínez, made without a trace of evidence); c) that no defendant's statement had been taken from Mrs. Acosta, which meant that she was being tried illegally; d) the refusal to allow the intervention of a legal representative for Mrs. Acosta and the failure to name a court-appointed defense counsel for her; e) the judge's denial of the rogatory letter allowing María Luisa Acosta to give a defendant's statement in Chinandega; and h) [Tr. sic] that the proceedings were dismissed against those responsible for Mr. García Valle 's murder when "what was permissible was to impose a temporary stay of proceedings, at best." Appendix 121. Appeal for annulment to the District Civil Court Judge and District Criminal Court Judge by operation of law, January 24, 2003. Trial court file, folios 324 to 329, and 333 and 334. Appendix to the petitioners’ communication of July 13, 2007. 131 Appendix 122. Resolution of the Bluefields District Civil and Criminal for the In, by operation of law Court, March 4, 2003. Trial court file, folio 365. Appendix to the petitioners’ communication of July 13, 2007. 132 Appendix 123. Document formally embodying final judgment dismissing proceedings of May 13, 2002, issued by the District Civil and Criminal Court of the In by operation of law, March 24, 2003. Trial court file, folios 396 to 403, Appendix to the petitioners’ communication of July 13, 2007.