document submitted by LEONEL CHINCHILLA CRISTALES, the Judge realized that it was not signed and does not have the respective signature.”44 69. It was stated in the judgment that: “(i) evidential value is given to the initial statement given by the defendant Roberto Girón, single surname, since it constitutes an improper confession, accepting facts to his detriment, like that he was carrying a machete knife which had blood stains; (ii) evidential value is given to the initial statement given by Pedro Castillo Mendoza, which constitutes a qualified confession, where he states that it was Roberto Girón who was carrying the machete knife and not he. He also expressed that “it was the first time he committed a crime and he accepted that he didn’t remember who came up with the idea of committing the crime investigated and especially, of behaving in such a way, and therefore he accepted the facts to his detriment.”45 The Court concluded that “ROBERTO GIRÓN, single surname, and PEDRO CASTILLO MENDOZA were guilty of the crime of AGGRAVATED RAPE, based on the initial statements given by both, where they admitted to the facts alleged against them (…).46 70. With regards to the sentence, the Court considered: “our criminal law establishes that the DEATH PENALTY should be imposed to the person who rapes and then kills another person who had not reached ten years of age.” The Court added that the crime committed “has the only sanction of the sentence mentioned in our Criminal Code, that was mentioned before.”47 3. Appeal 71. The alleged victims submitted appeals against the conviction. According to information provided by the parties, these remedies were dismissed by the Twelfth Chamber of the Appeal Court on December 1, 1993. 4. Cassation Appeal 72. The alleged victims submitted cassation appeals on substantive grounds against the decision of the Twelfth Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. 73. In particular, Pedro Castillo Mendoza’s defense attorney argued the following: i) the chamber did not take into account the mitigating elements in favor of his defendant, such as his confession in his initial statement at the pre-trial phase and not having any previous criminal records; ii) the girl died because of the wounds to her neck and not because of the rape and his defendant was not carrying the knife nor was he seen with it, which suggests that his client was not the person who killed the offended but that he only participated in the rape.48 74. For his part, Roberto Girón’s defender argued, among other things, that the Chamber erred in the sentencing of the death penalty because it did not link each of the evidence with the other evidence and it did not include the reasoning of why it gave value, or not, to such evidence and reached the conclusions it reached with legal certainty.49 44 Annex 9. Judgment of the First Chamber of the First Trial Criminal Court of Escuintla, October 4, 1993. 45 Annex 9. Judgment of the First Chamber of the First Trial Criminal Court of Escuintla, October 4, 1993. 46 Annex 9. Judgment of the First Chamber of the First Trial Criminal Court of Escuintla, October 4, 1993. 47 Annex 9. Judgment of the First Chamber of the First Trial Criminal Court of Escuintla, October 4, 1993. 48 Annex 10. Brief from Iván Bocanegra Conde explaining the substantive grounds of the cassation appeal submitted on March 17, 1994. 49 Annex 11. Brief from Leonel Chinchilla Cristales explaining the substantive grounds of the cassation appeal submitted on February 25, 1994. 12