since the court order of April 19, 2002.142 On August 24, 2006, in the course of her intervention, the Assistant Prosecutor of Managua asked the Supreme Court of Justice to allow the cassation appeal (casación) and to partially annul the judgment of March 13, 2002 in the part referring to Peter Tsokos and Peter Martínez. The Assistant Prosecutor based her position on the insults inflicted on the appellant by the way the proceedings were handled.143 On December 19, 2006, the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court rejected the cassation appeal stating that the judgment did have res judicata status because the parties were notified of the decision and consented to it in that they did not file any appeal against it.144 María Luisa Acosta was notified of this decision on December 22, 2006.145 4. Proceedings instituted by Peter Tsokos and Peter Martínez against María Luisa Acosta 69. In addition to the criminal investigation into Maria Luisa Acosta's alleged complicity in the murder, described above in paragraphs 46–51, Messrs. Tsokos and Martínez used other judicial mechanisms against her, which are described below. a. Provisional attachment and claim for damages 70. On May 14, 2002, Peter Martínez , acting on his own behalf and that of Peter Tsokos, asked the Bluefields District Civil Court to issue a provisional attachment on María Luisa Acosta's house, because supposedly she owed them US$100,000 and “[he had]good reason to fear that the debtor had [no] intention of paying.”146 The attachment requested was granted the following day.147 On May 15, 2002, Messrs. Tsokos and Martínez filed a claim for damages against María Luisa Acosta, amounting to US$100,000 (plus 30% for alleged legal expenses), for having accused them of the murder of her husband. They requested confirmation of the attachment.148 71. On June 26, 2002, Mrs. Acosta's representative filed an incidental motion for annulment aimed at having the provisional attachment lifted.149 On October 1, 16, and 24, 2003, Mrs. Acosta's representative asked the District Civil Court Judge to pronounce on the matter given the serious damages these measures were causing Mrs. Acosta.150 On October 24, 2002, the District Civil Court opened the discovery period for the incidental proceedings.151 On February 27, 2003, the District Court allowed the 142 Appendix 133. Appeal for annulment to the Supreme Court, filed by the legal representative of Mrs. María Luisa Acosta, on December 22, 2004. Case File No. 2019-2004 on the Appeal for Annulment, to the Supreme Court, folios 1 to 25. Appendix to the petitioners’ communication of July 13, 2007. 143Appendix 134. Response of the Office of the Assistant Prosecutor of Managua regarding the mistreatment of the appellant filing the annulment appeal. File No. 2019-2004 of the appeal for annulment to the Supreme Court, folios 80-86. Appendix to the petitioners’ communication of July 13, 2007. 144 Appendix 135. Judgment No. 19 of the Supreme Court, Criminal Division, December 19, 2006. Case File No. 2019-2004 on the Appeal for Annulment, to the Supreme Court, folios 110ff. Appendix to the petitioners’ communication of July 13, 2007. 145 Appendix 136. Notification of the Supreme Court, Criminal Division, Friday, December 22, 2006. Case File No. 2019-2004 on the Appeal for Annulment, to the Supreme Court , folio 112. Appendix to the petitioners’ communication of July 13, 2007. 146 Appendix 137. Application for pre-judgment attachment filed by Peter Tsokos and Peter Martínez,, May 14, 2002. File No. 350-02 of the Bluefields District Civil Court (Pre-judgment attachment /damages), folio 1. Appendix to the petitioners’ communication of July 13, 2007. 147 Appendix 138. Certificate of pre=judgment attachment of the Bluefields District Civil Court of May 15, 2002. File No. 350-02 of the District Court, (Pre-judgment attachment /damages), folio 5. Appendix to the petitioners’ communication of July 13, 2007. 148 Appendix 139. Complaint for damages, May 15, 2002. File No. 350-02 of the District Court,(Pre-judgment attachment /damages), folios 6 and 7. Appendix to the petitioners’ communication of July 13, 2007. 149 Appendix 140. Incidental motion for annulment filed by Mrs. Acosta's representative, June 26, 2002. File No. 350-02 of the District Court, (Pre-judgment attachment /damages), folios 18 and 21. Appendix to the petitioners’ communication of July 13, 2007. 150 Appendix 141. Document from Mrs. Acosta's representative, October 23, 2002. File No. 350-02 of the District Court, (Prejudgment attachment /damages), folio 42. Appendix to the petitioners’ communication of July 13, 2007. 151 Appendix 142. District Court decision, October 24, 2002. File No. 350-02 of the District Court, (Pre-judgment attachment /damages), folio 43. Appendix to the petitioners’ communication of July 13, 2007.