69 forwarded the case file to the Third Chamber of the Court of Appeals.123 On September 17, 1998, the Third Chamber of the Court of Appeals decided to remove the Judge of First Instance from the case and ordered the proceedings transferred to the Second Criminal, Drug Trafficking and Environmental Crimes Court of First Instance, for it to continue processing the case;124 134.48. the Judge of the Second Criminal, Drug Trafficking and Environmental Crimes Court of First Instance, Henry Monroy Andrino, was left in charge of the case and he ordered that the hearing of the intermediate stage be held on January 27, 1999. At this hearing, the new Public Prosecutor125 ratified the charges filed before the First Criminal Court of First Instance;126 134.49. on January 28, 1999, the Second Criminal, Drug Trafficking and Environmental Crimes Court of First Instance issued the order for the trial to commence against Edgar Augusto Godoy Gaitán, Juan Valencia Osorio and Juan Guillermo Oliva Carrera as possible accessories of the murder of Myrna Mack Chang, deeming that “there are serious grounds to try the defendants in an oral and public trial due to the probability of their participation in the facts that they are accused of committing.” It was established that the competent court to continue the trial in this new stage was the Third Criminal, Drug Trafficking and Environmental Crimes Trial Court;127 134.50. on February 16, 1999, the Third Criminal, Drug Trafficking and Environmental Crimes Trial Court issued a ruling in which it declared that it was not competent to hear the case and ordered that it be forwarded to the Second Criminal, Drug Trafficking and Environmental Crimes Trial Court. The arguments of the Court to declare that it was not competent were that the investigative process and its preparatory stage were under the control of the First Criminal, Drug Trafficking and Environmental Crimes Court of First Instance, and this Court even began the intermediate stage of the case; subsequently, due to the objection filed by the private accuser against the Judge, the proceeding was forwarded to the Second Court of First Instance, and in the opinion of this Court, after this ruling was issued the proceeding “must return to the normal line regarding pre-established territorial 123 Cf. ruling by the First Criminal, Drug Trafficking and Environmental Crimes Court of First Instance on June 23, 1998 (file with annexes to the brief answering the application and raising preliminary objections, leaves 6072 to 6075). 124 Cf. Order of the Third Chamber of the Court of Appeals on September 17, 1998 (file with annexes to the brief answering the application and raising preliminary objections, leaves 6818 to 6823). 125 Cf. brief filed before the Second Criminal, Drug Trafficking and Environmental Crimes Court of First Instance on January 19, 1999 (file with annexes to the brief answering the application and raising preliminary objections, leaves 7690 to 7691). 126 Cf. record of the intermediate hearing of the Second Criminal, Drug Trafficking and Environmental Crimes Court of First Instance of January 27, 1999 (file with annexes to the application, annex 34, leaf 701 to 713 and file with annexes to the brief answering the application and raising preliminary objections, leaves 7702 to 7714); and writ issued by the Second Criminal, Drug Trafficking and Environmental Crimes Court of First Instance on November 19, 1998 (file with annexes to the brief answering the application and raising preliminary objections, leaf 8250). 127 Cf. ruling by the Second Criminal, Drug Trafficking and Environmental Crimes Court of First Instance of January 28, 1999 (file with annexes to the application, annex 35, leaves 716 to 717 and file with annexes to the brief answering the application and raising preliminary objections, leaves 7715 to 7716).