208. An order on April 3, 2007 declared that the oral process would begin on May 18, 2007, following a motion by the defense to postpone the opening of the criminal trial. 260 209. The criminal trial began on May 18, 2007 before the Third Special Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima, empaneled by superior judges José Antonio Neyra Flores, Manuel Alejandro Carranza Paniagua and Carlos Augusto Manrique Suárez, who presided over the debate.261 210. The membership of the panel of judges on the Third Special Criminal Chamber changed on January 7, 2009 when Judge José Antonio Neyra Flores was promoted to the Supreme Court.262 Judge Iván Sequeiros Vargas was appointed presiding judge of the chamber. The Third Special Criminal Chamber was therefore comprised of superior judges Iván Sequeiro Vargas, Manuel Alejandro Carranza Paniagua and Carlos Augusto Manrique Suárez, who continued to preside over the debate. 211. The National Council of the Judiciary resolved on July 23, 2009 not to confirm Carlos Augusto Manrique Suárez to the position of criminal judge. He appealed this decision on August 31, 2009, and but the appeal was denied on September 30, 2009. 263 Nevertheless, because one of the judges had been changed, the Third Special Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima ruled on October 15, 2009 that “the public hearing has broken down, although the evidence files served in the criminal trial remain current,” and it ordered a date to be set for beginning a new trial “as soon as possible”. 264 212. The Third Special Criminal Chamber, empaneled by superior judges Iván Sequeiros Vargas, Manuel Alejandro Carranza Paniagua—now presiding over debate—and Sonia Liliana Téllez Portugal,265 issued a ruling on January 7, 2010 that the new criminal trial would begin on March 19, 2010.266 213. The process was declared “complex” in an order on July 5, 2010, “in view of its significance and difficulty.”267 Cf. Ruling by the Third Special Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima, April 3, 2007 (evidence file, volume II, annex 36 to the case submission brief, folio 972). 260 Cf. Ruling by the Third Special Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima, October 15, 2012 (evidence file, volume XX, annexed to the representatives’ observations on the State’s preliminary objections, folio 13180). 261 Cf. Ruling by the Third Special Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima, October 15, 2012 (evidence file, volume XX, annexed to the representatives’ observations on the State’s preliminary objections, folio 13180). 262 Cf. Order 199-2009-PCNM by National Council of the Judiciary en banc, September 30, 2009 (evidence file, volume II, annex 41 to the case submission brief, folios 1023 to 1035). 263 Order 182-09 by the Third Special Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima, October 15, 2009 and judicial notification November 6, 2009 (evidence file, volume II, annex 42 to the case submission brief, folios 1037 and 1038). 264 Cf. Ruling by the Third Special Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima, October 15, 2012 (evidence file, volume XX, annexed to the representatives’ observations on the State’s preliminary objections, folio 13181). 265 Cf. Order by the Third Special Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima, January 7, 2010 and judicial notification, January 13, 2010 (evidence file, volume II, annex 43 to the case submission brief, folios 1040 and 1041). 266 Ruling by the Transitory Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court on an appeal to vacate judgment, 35212012 July 24, 2013 (evidence file, volume XXI, helpful evidence, folio 14671). See also: ruling by the Third Special Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima, October 15, 2012 (evidence file, volume XX, annexed to the representatives’ observations on the State’s preliminary objections, folio 13180). 267