heroism, or any other humanitarian act, something that has not been accredited at any time. In addition, the same law provides that such benefits must be decided upon and set on the recommendation of the Central Prisons Board, stating the reasons that justify such remissions. That has not occurred in this incidental motion, despite the fact that that an opinion on that matter was requested from the [Board], which also constitutes an obstacle to granting the benefit sought. Coupled with the foregoing, Judge Aquo concludes that the benefit requested was not designed to enable a convicted person to die with dignity, but to encourage or reward a convicted person who has performed a solemn act of solidarity and compassion for another individual or individuals who have suffered misfortune. Therefore, the Judge decides that this motion must be declared without merit.”220 145. In addition, on April 29, 2004, the Judge of the First Criminal Enforcement Court forwarded a communication to the Second Judge informing him that “the Central Prisons Board has been disbanded since 2002, on account of the duplication of functions between the Judge of the First Criminal Enforcement Court and the President of the Board.” In light of the foregoing, “it [was] not possible to rule on the motion filed for early release under remission of sentence.”221 146. On May 17, 2004, Mrs. Chinchilla’s attorney filed an appeal on her behalf arguing that the interpretation of Article 7 of the Sentence Remission Law was “outmoded, simplistic and obsolete” and that the Central Prisons Board had not convened. Finally, it argued that the incidental motion should be interpreted in a manner consistent with international treaties on the observance of human rights.222 On May 18, 2004, the judge confirmed receipt of the appeal and forwarded it the Fourth Division of the Court of Appeals for a ruling.223 After being notified on May 25, 2004, of Mrs. Chinchilla’s death,224 on June 3, 2004, the said Appeals Court decided not to hear the appeal on the grounds that the appellant had died. 225 D. The investigation into Mrs. Chinchilla’s death 147. The Prosecution Unit for Crimes against Life and the Person of the Public Prosecution Service was notified of Mrs. Chinchilla’s death on May 25, 2004. 226 The prosecutor of Agency No. 22 of the Metropolitan Prosecutor’s Office conducted the official removal of the body that same day. A photograph album of the official removal of the body was included in a report of June 9, 2004.227 Cf. Incidental Motions for Early Release. Judiciary. Enforcement No. 429-96 Of. 7. Decision of the Judge of the Second Criminal Enforcement Court of April 29, 2004 (evidence file, folios 1139-1144). 220 Cf. Incidental Motions for Early Release. Judiciary. Enforcement No. 429-96 Of. 7. Communication of the First Criminal Enforcement Judge of April 29, 2004 (evidence file, folio 1145). 221 Cf. Incidental Motions for Early Release. Judiciary. Enforcement No. 429-96 Of. 7. Legal Defense Institute. Appeal filed on May 17, 2004 (evidence file, folios 1150-1193). 222 Cf. Incidental Motions for Early Release. Judiciary. Enforcement No. 429-96 Of. 7. Remission of Sentences File. Decision of the Judge of the Second Criminal Enforcement Court of May 18, 2004 (evidence file, folio 1195). 223 Cf. Incidental Motions for Early Release. Judiciary. Enforcement No. 429-96 Of. 7. Remission of Sentences File. Women’s Orientation Center. Official letter No. 99-2004. Communication of the Deputy Director of the COF, May 25, 2004 (evidence file, folio 1199). 224 Cf. Incidental Motions for Early Release. Judiciary. Enforcement No. 429-96 Of. 7. Decision of the Fourth Division of the Court of Appeals of June 3, 2004 (evidence file, folios 1200-1201). 225 Cf. Public Prosecution Service. Prosecutor for Crimes against Life and Personal Integrity. “Vida” Office 04, MP001/2004/105950, January 11, 2005 (evidence file, folios 1330 and 1331). 226 227 Cf. Public Prosecution Service. Form for removal of corpses, dated May 25, 2004 (evidence file, folio 1297) 46