30 reply to the charges within the term established by Law. On August 30, 2002 said Court opened the trial to evidence for twenty days. On November 5, 2002 the Sectional Court of First Instance of Tela stated that it would continue with the change of venue so that the parties could present their respective conclusions.61 54(39) On November 26, 2002 Mr. José Luis Mejía Herrera, public defense counsel of Mr. Alfredo López Álvarez requested to the Sectional Court of First Instance of Tela that it issue in his favor an acquittal based on, among other arguments, the fact that the alleged drug seized had been found within a vehicle that did not belong to Mr. López Álvarez nor was it driven by him; that he can not be considered the owner or the illegitimate possessor of the substance that was said to be cocaine; that as expressed by the prosecutor only one rock of crack was seized from him, and that once the same was analyzed it resulted for personal use, and that reasonable doubt had been established with regard to the existence of the alleged drug, since the first report did not establish any chain of custody regarding the alleged two kilos of cocaine. On November 27, 2002 the mentioned Court summoned the parties to hear its judgment.62 54(40) On January 13, 2003 the Sectional Court of First Instance of Tela issued an acquittal in favor of Messrs. Alfredo López Álvarez and Luis Ángel Acosta, and dismissed the case followed against Mr. Sunny Loreto Cubas, based on the fact that “the chain of custody was not established for the evidence seized, reason for which up to this date there was no certainty if the sample sent to the toxicological lab and that resulted positive was taken from the two kilos of white powder seized from the accused, since there was no evidence in the court records of who performed said judicial proceeding or if the same was later replaced and when the tests were redone it resulted that it was not cocaine. Therefore two toxicological reports with different results from what seemed to be the same evidence results in the fact that the body of the crime was not proven. [...] [S]ince there are two different toxicological reports, there is doubt in determining which of the two is the one actually practiced on the evidence seized in the present case.”63 54(41) On January 20, 2003 the Office of the Public Prosecutor presented a motion of appeal before the Appellate Court of la Ceiba against the acquittal issued by the Sectional Court of First Instance of Tela. On January 23, 2003 that Court admitted the appeal. On May 29, 2003 the Appellate Court confirmed the acquittal based on the fact that “from the assessment of the evidence added to the trial it could not be concluded that the accused h[ad] participated in an act that constituted a crime […].” The judgment added that “even when it is true that the statements of the police agents that participated in the capture of the accused are present in the process, they 61 Cf. ruling issued by the Sectional Court of First Instance of Tela of July 30, 2002 (dossier of appendixes to the response to the petition, volume II, folios 680); ruling issued by the Sectional Court of First Instance of Tela of August 30, 2002 (dossier of appendixes to the response to the petition, volume II, folios 698), and ruling of the Sectional Court of First Instance of Tela of November 5, 2002 (dossier of appendixes to the response to the petition, volume II, folios 793). 62 Cf. petition of the defense counsel of Mr. Alfredo López-Álvarez, Mr. José Luis Mejía Herrera, presented before the Sectional Court of first Instance of Tela on November 26, 2002 (dossier of appendixes to the response to the petition, volume II, folios 821 through 824), and ruling of the Sectional Court of First Instance of Tela of November 27, 2002 (dossier of appendixes to the response to the petition, volume II, folios 825). 63 Cf. judgment issued by the Sectional Court of First Instance of Tela of January 13, 2003 (dossier of appendixes to the response to the petition, volume II, folios 827 through 829).