91. On January 11, 2006, the defense filed a challenge in respect of the blood relationship existing between Judge Luis Antonio Lobo and Marco Ramiro Lobo, the legal representative of Mariana Lubina.164 In response, the Judge admitted the challenge filed and transferred the case to Judge Lidia Marlene Martínez Amador.165 92. In light of the application presented by Prosecutor Karen Alicia Montiño Valerio,166 on August 14, 2006, the Civil Court decided to reissue the arrest warrant against José Ángel Rosa.167 Subsequently, on September 18, 2006, the Civil Court ordered the imposition of precautionary measures alternative to imprisonment.168 93. On March 26, 2007, after concluding that there was no link between the threats made by Mr. José Ángel Rosa and the death of Mr. Carlos Luna López, the Civil Court agreed to rescind the provisional detention order, revoke the precautionary measures alternative to imprisonment and dismiss the case against the defendant José Ángel Rosa.169 In response, the Prosecutor in charge of the case170 filed an application for reconsideration and subsidiary appeal.171 94. On November 1, 2007, the Third Court of Appeals, upon considering that there was sufficient evidence to reasonably conclude that Mr. José Ángel Rosa had probably participated in the punishable acts, upheld the appeal filed and again ordered his provisional detention for the crimes he was accused of.172 There is no record in the file indicating compliance with said provisional detention order. 95. Based on the foregoing, on December 12, 2007, the defense filed an appeal for legal protection before the Constitutional Chamber, alleging violation of his procedural guarantees. 96. On June 30, 2008, Mr. José Ángel Rosa was murdered outside his home in Catacamas as part of an alleged “settling of scores.”173 97. However, despite the death of José Ángel Rosa, on September 28, 2008, the Constitutional Chamber rejected the appeal filed because “the violation alleged by the 164 Cf. Application for Recusal of January 11, 2006 (File of attachments to the State’s response, page 5988). 165 Cf. Ruling of the Catacamas Civil Court of January 12, 2006 (File of attachments to the State’s response, page 5990). On January 12, 2006 the defense requested the final dismissal of the proceedings against the defendant after concluding there was not sufficient evidence to doubt his innocence. However, in a ruling issued on April 25, 2006, the Court denied the motion for dismissal. Cf. Application for dismissal of January 12, 2006 (File of attachments to the State’s response, pages 5991 to 5994). 166 Cf. Application for arrest warrant of August 9, 2006 (File of attachments to the State’s response, page 6007). 167 Cf. Ruling of the Catacamas Civil Court of August 14, 2006 (File of attachments to the State’s response, page 6009). 168 Cf. Ruling of the Catacamas Civil Court of September 18, 2006 (File of attachments to the State’s response, pages 6027 to 6029). 169 Cf. Ruling of the Catacamas Civil Court of March 27, 2007 (File of attachments to the State’s response, pages 6051 to 6055). 170 Prosecutor Montiño was replaced by Prosecutor Adalgicia Chinchilla Suazo, who was duly notified on the proceedings, on March 28, 2007 (File of attachments to the State’s response, pages 6056 and 6058). 171 Cf. Application for reconsideration and subsidiary appeal of March 29, 2007 (File of attachments to the State’s response, page 6064). 172 Cf. Ruling of the Third Court of Appeals of November 1, 2007 (File of attachments to the State’s response, pages 6070 and 6074). 173 Cf. Article published in the newspaper La Tribuna on June 2, 2008, supra (File of attachments to the Merits Report, page 704). 30