expert witnesses prepared in military circles without the participation of the Public Prosecution Service or the plaintiff.104 80. On April 20, 1998, the 12th Division of the Court of Appeals decided not to grant the application and merely indicated that its decision was based on the fact that it "considered that for the time being the circumstances did not make it advisable."105 Ms. Manchu filed an appeal, which the Constitutional Court ruled unfounded on April 22, 1998.106 81. In relation to the public hearing that opened on April 21, 1998, the petitioners informed that: (i) the experts and witnesses proposed by the defense remained in the courtroom, in spite of a rule that prohibited them from doing so; and (ii) the court rejected the plaintiff's request that it be provided with the videos and tape recordings of the hearing.107 The petitioners said that in light of these facts, on the sixth day of the public oral proceedings, the plaintiff presented a motion for recusal to the court “owing to the manifest bias in its decisions in contravention of procedural rules.”108 82. They said that the court suspended the oral proceedings the next day.109 The petitioners said that, subsequently, the Sentencing Court of Zacapa examined the motion for recusal, having been designated to do so by the Supreme Court of Justice, and declared it unfounded.110 They said that the plaintiff presented another motion for recusal on June 8, 1998.111 83. The CEH said that in October 1998, Ramiro Contreras Valenzuela, the special prosecutor assigned to the case, announced to the national press that the Public Prosecution Service was not providing him with the necessary support to carry out the appropriate investigations.112 On November 3, 1998, Prosecutor Contreras reported that he was the target of threats and intimidation and proceeded to resign as special prosecutor in the case.113 The State reported that on October 27, 1998, Alejandro Muñoz Pivaral was appointed as the new special prosecutor for the case.114 84. On November 25, 1998, the public oral proceedings resumed before the Sentencing Court for Criminal Matters, Drug Trafficking, and Environmental Crimes of the Department of Alta Verapaz Cobán.115 104 Annex 19. Application for constitutional relief (amparo) against the decision of April 16, 1998 of the Sentencing Court for Criminal Matters, Drug Trafficking, and Environmental Crimes of the Department of Alta Verapaz, Coban filed by María Estela López Funes on her own behalf and in representation of Rigoberta Menchu Tum, received by the 12th Division of the Court of Appeals on April 20, 1998. Enclosed with the petitioners' communication of March 30, 1999. 105 Annex 20. Decision of the 12th Division of the Court of Appeals Acting As Court on Matters of Constitutional Relief in application for constitutional relief 77-98, April 20, 1998, Enclosed with the petitioners' communication of March 30, 1999. 106 Annex 21. Decision of the Constitutional Court in case 225-98, April 22, 1998. Enclosed with the petitioners' communication of March 30, 1999. 107 Annex 22. Petitioners' communication of August 10, 1998. 108 Annex 22. Petitioners' communication of August 10, 1998. 109 Annex 22. Petitioners' communication of August 10, 1998. 110 Annex 22. Petitioners' communication of August 10, 1998. 111 Annex 22. Petitioners' communication of August 10, 1998. 112 Massacre. Annex 2. CEH, Guatemala: Memory of Silence, Volume VI, Illustrative Cases, Annex 1, Illustrative Case No. 3: Xamán 113 Annex. Communication from the former special prosecutor for the Xamán case, Carlos Ramiro Contreras Valenzuela, November 3, 1998. 114 Annex 23. Petitioners' communication of August 10, 1998.State’s communication of December 1, 1998. 115 Annex 24. Petitioners' communication of August 10, 1998.Record of deliberations. Case: Xaman. November 25, 1998, sentencing court for Criminal Matters, Drug Trafficking, and Environmental Crimes of the Department of Alta Verapaz. Received on May 10, 2000. Petitioners' communication of March 4, 1999. 18