of First Instance dismissed the crime of bodily harm,44 and admitted the accusation regarding the other crimes listed. Said resolution was appealed45 and the appeal was declared inadmissible on July 8, 1999. 46 76. On October 21, 1999, the Sentencing Court of the Department of Quetzaltenango issued a conviction against Mr. Valenzuela and other persons. In said judgment, Mr. Valenzuela was acquitted for the crime of abduction or kidnapping due to lack of evidence and declared responsible for the crimes of illegal possession of offensive firearms, murder, evasion, and public use of an assumed name. Mr. Valenzuela Ávila was sentenced to death for the crime of murder, as the court considered that the requirement of "social danger" was fulfilled. 47 77. On November 3, 1999, Mr. Valenzuela's defense filed a special appeal against the conviction. They argued, among the grounds of form: violation of the principle of immediacy; lack of justification, referring to the fact that the Court limited itself to listing the means of evidence produced in the debate, without indicating the reasoning that led the court to convict or acquit and that all the evidence was not assessed; illegality of obtaining the means of evidence, insofar as the court took into account a confession from Mr. Valenzuela to his captors that was obtained by torture on the day of his arrest on May 27, 1998. They also alleged, among reasons of merit: erroneous application of the last paragraph of article 132 (crime of murder), since the motive for committing the crime was not proven and the court did not use direct evidence to determine Mr. Valenzuela's social danger, only presumptions. 48 78. On August 7, 2000, the Seventh Chamber of the Court of Appeals declared the appeal inadmissible. Said Chamber concluded that the appeal was inadmissible because “it suffers from deficiencies regarding its formulation, invocation of the vices alleged as such; as well as the absence of an intelligible thesis in relation to the alleged underlying motives”.49 79. Mr. Valenzuela filed a cassation appeal for reasons of form and merit. On December 1, 2000, the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice declared the appeal inadmissible. As for the formal reason, it indicated that "the argument by the appellant is not clear, precise and technical, as it does not specifically indicate the underlying justification of the reasons to attack the judgment." He added that “the judgment […] contains the structure of the seconddegree criminal judgment, dividing treatment into four sections […] thus containing the internal and external requirements for a second-degree ruling to be valid.”50 80. On June 10, 2002, Tirso Román Valenzuela Ávila’s defense filed a motion for review against the judgment of October 21, 1999, issued by the Sentencing Court of the Department of Quetzaltenango, which was admitted on March 17, 2003, and declared inadmissible on July 5, 2004, by the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. The Chamber understood Cf. Decision of the Court of First Instance for Criminal, Drug Trafficking and Environmental Crime of Quetzaltenango of July 2, 1999 (file of annexes to the Merits Report, annex 14, fs. 245 to 256). 45 Cf. Motion for reconsideration of July 6, 1999, signed by the defense attorney of Tirso Valenzuela Ávila (file of proceedings before the Commission, annex 14, fs. 1534 to 1536) 46 Cf. Resolution of the Court of First Instance for Criminal, Drug Trafficking and Environmental Crime of Quetzaltenango of July 8, 1999 (file of proceedings before the Commission, annex 14, f. 1537). 47 Cf. Judgment of the Sentencing Court of the Department of Quetzaltenango of October 21, 1999, supra. 48 Cf. Special appeal filed on November 3, 1999, by Tirso Román Valenzuela Ávila against the Judgment of the Sentencing Court of the Department of Quetzaltenango of October 21, 1999 (file of annexes to the Merits Report, annex 16, fs. 397 to 433). 49 Cf. Order of the Seventh Chamber of the Court of Appeals of Quetzaltenango of August 7, 2000 (file of annexes to the Merits Report, annex 17, fs. 435 to 494). 50 Resolution of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of December 1, 2000 (file of annexes to the Merits Report, annex 18, fs. 496 to 530). 44 21