48 175. In connection with the allegations of the State, the Court verifies that, indeed, various judges from the CPAM disqualified themselves for the purposes of hearing the claim brought by the two victims. Thus, Judge Hadel Mostafá Paolini, appointed Judge-Rapporteur for the purposes of deciding on the admissibility of the appeal and the amparo action,192 had also acted as rapporteur in the decision that determined the commission of an “inexcusable judicial error.”193 Moreover, Judge Levis Ignacio Zerpa and Yolanda Jaimes Guerrero were members of this Chamber at the time such error was admitted.194 Lastly, Judge Evelyn Marrero Ortíz was a member of the First Court at the time of the decision whereby the victims were removed from office.195 176. However, it was not until September 29, 2005, 22 months after the appeal was filed, that Judges Yolanda Jaimes Guerrero and Hadel Mostafá Paolini expressed their will to disqualify themselves; so did Judges Evelyn Marrero Ortiz and Levis Ignacio Zerpa on October 18, 2005, and March 2, 2006, 23 and 28 months later, respectively. All disqualifications were admitted on December 20, 2006.196 177. In that regard, the Court finds that even though it could be argued that processing and ruling on the disqualification of four judges from a 5-member tribunal hinders the ordinary development of proceedings, a delay of more than 20 months in filing the related disqualifications and more than 1 year in ruling thereon is excessive. 178. As to the activity carried out by the CPAM, the Court finds that it took 3 years, 4 months and 22 days to declare the appeal admissible. This period is excessive considering that it involves a relatively simple procedural act whose only purpose is to verify compliance with admissibility requirements.197 179. Furthermore, the Court notes that at the public hearing, Mr. Rocha indicated that “the [CPAM] has not yet released the notices for summoning the interested parties; once these notices are released, we must have them published with the press to notify any interested party and continue with the proceedings.”198 Furthermore, Mr. Apitz stated that “notices [were] being released for the [CORJS], the Attorney General, and the Public Prosecutor’s Office.”199 These statements were not challenged by the State. 180. On the other hand, the State filed an information statement regarding “the duration of judicial proceedings before the [CPAM].” Such statement shows statistical figures that reflect the result of the Chamber’s activities. Furthermore, the witness stated that despite “intense jurisdictional activity,” such Chamber has “the highest judgment record,” in any event, “there are still many old cases.”200 The State produced this evidence but did not provide sufficient argumentative support thereon, 192 Cf. judgment No. 535 of April 18, 2007, rendered by the ad-hoc CPAM, supra note 184, p. 3832. 193 Cf. judgment No. 809 of May 29, 2003 issued by the CPAM, supra note 38, p. 1007. 194 Cf. judgment No. 809 of May 29, 2003 issued by the CPAM, supra note 38, p. 1034. 195 Cf. judgment No. 1430 of June 11, 2002, rendered by the First Court, supra note 37, p. 3176. 196 Cf. judgment No. 535 of April 18, 2007, rendered by the ad-hoc CPAM, supra note 184, p. 3833. 197 Cf. judgment No. 535 of April 18, 2007, rendered by the ad-hoc CPAM, supra note 184, p. 3845 and 3846. 198 Cf. testimony of Mr. Rocha, supra note 144. 199 Cf. testimony of Mr. Apitz, supra note 137. 200 Cf. declaration before a public notary (affidavit) by Mrs. Sofía Yamile Guzmán on January 10, 2008 (File on the Merits, Book III, pp. 762 to 792).