10. Upon learning of the facts related by her daughter, the petitioner states that on November 20, 2001, she filed a criminal complaint for rape against H.R.A with the Jinotega District Criminal Court. Regarding domestic remedies, she reports that on November 30, 2001, an arrest warrant was issued for H.R.A and that on December 3, 2001, the representatives of H.R.A. filed an appeal against this decision. On April 13, 2002, the Tribunal de Jurado [Jury Court] issued Verdict No. 33, acquitting H.R.A., and on April 14, 2002 the petitioner filed an incidente de nulidad sustancial [motion to vacate based on substantive procedural violations] against this judgment. On May 13, 2002, the acquittal was declared void 6 and, the next day, H.R.A.’s defense filed an appeal against the latter decision. 11. The petitioner states that on January 13, 2003, in Judgment No. 001, the Appellate Court upheld the judgment in the appeal lodged by H.R.A., declared the absolute substantive nullity of the interlocutory order of May 13, 2002, and ordered the Substitute Judge a quo to release the accused and to open for evidence the incidente de nulidad.7 She states that, in that same judgment, the Appellate Court “sharply called to order” the Judge “for her highly irregular conduct”8 and ordered that the case be heard by the Substitute Judge. She states that after Judgment No. 001 was issued, five judges were disqualified from hearing the incidente de nulidad, and, after numerous steps taken by the petitioner, on January 13, 2005, a judge assumed jurisdiction. 12. She reports that on August 9, 2005, the Jinotega District Criminal Court issued Judgment Nº 176, disallowed the incidente de nulidad sustancial that had been filed against the acquittal of H.R.A. by the Jinotega Jury Court (Verdict No. 33).9 The petitioner alleges that, on August 26, 2005, both she and the Jinotega Assistant Prosecutor filed an appeal against this decision, without thus far a judgment having been rendered in that connection. 13. The petitioner states that a series of irregularities, omissions, and delays occurred during the criminal proceedings against H.R.A. that 6 From a copy of the verdict of May 13, 2002, the Judge set said verdict No. 33, based on the provisions of Article 444.8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which reads: “Substantive procedural violations involving the verdict or declaration of the jury include: (…) 8. If the jurymen were bribed.” 7 From a copy of Judgment No. 001, of January 13, 2003, issued by the Northern District Appellate Court, Criminal Chamber, Matagalpa. 8 From a copy of Judgment No. 001, of January 13, 2003, issued by the Northern District Appellate Court, Criminal Chamber, Matagalpa (original text in upper case). 9 From a copy of Judgment Nº 176 of August 9, 2005, issued by the Jinotega District Criminal Court (original text in upper case). 4