43 76(54) In this judgment, the judge considered that political motivation was not relevant in relation to the facts investigated. Moreover, the judge did not investigate the disappearance of the evidence, or the fire in the registry where the file was kept; he did not refer to the Army’s refusal to summon soldiers to give testimony; he left the case open against some of the accused – mostly civilian patrolmen – and indicated that Juan Acabal Patzán did not belong to these patrols, despite the existence of evidence that he was a PAC commander. This demonstrates the negligence and lack of independence and impartiality that characterized the judicial authorities who intervened in the case. 76(55) On November 26, 1997, the Attorney General’s office filed an appeal against the judgment of October 15, 1997, because it had closed the possibility of investigating those who masterminded the facts and had not ruled on the crime of perjury committed by the high command of the State’s security forces.57 76(56) On November 28, 1997, the private complainant filed a petition for clarification and expansion regarding the judgment of October 15, 1997, before the First Criminal Court of First Instance, in which she requested, inter alia, clarification of: the criminal liability of Juan Acabal Patzán for the four crimes; the disappearance of the bullet heads which killed Jorge Carpio Nicolle; the arbitrary action of removing the weapon with which the latter had been murdered from Guatemalan jurisdiction; and the failure to rule on the crime of perjury committed by several soldiers. She also requested that Juan Acabal Patzán be declared responsible for the crime of attempted murder against the minor, Sydney Shaw Díaz.58 76(57) On December 19, 1997, the First Criminal Court of First Instance declared the petition for clarification and expansion of the judgment of October 15, 1997, filed by the private complainant, admissible and decided that Juan Acabal Patzán was guilty of the crime of murder and of the attempted murder of Sydney Shaw Díaz, and left open the proceeding with regard to the perpetrators, accomplices and accessories to the facts.59 76(58) On December 26, 1997, the private complainant filed an appeal against the judgment of October 15, 1997, before the First Criminal Court of First Instance, which admitted it on December 29, 1997.60 This appeal pointed out a series of arbitrary acts committed during the proceeding. One of these arbitrary acts referred to the failure of the Army to provide information on the name of the military officer who was based in Chichicastenango, and who carried out a search of the site of the facts, half an hour after they had taken place. Other arbitrary acts referred to the loss of evidence and bullet heads, to the simultaneous scheduling of probative procedures in different parts of the country prejudicing the right to defense, to the presentation of false statements by Army officers, and also to the unjustified rejection of probative evidence. 57 Cf. copy of the domestic judicial file of the Carpio case (file of appendixes to the requests and arguments brief, appendix 1, Piece XLIV). 58 Cf. copy of the domestic judicial file of the Carpio case (file of appendixes to the requests and arguments brief, appendix 1, Piece XLIV). 59 Cf. copy of the domestic judicial file of the Carpio case (file of appendixes to the requests and arguments brief, appendix 1, Piece XLIV). 60 Cf. copy of the domestic judicial file of the Carpio case (file of appendixes to the requests and arguments brief, appendix 1, Piece XLIV).