extrajudicial execution, intentional bodily harm, and trespass.94 The petitioners provided information about various motions presented by the accused's defense to delay the proceeding and in attempt to have members of the court removed, without any justification whatsoever.95 They added that toward the end of 1997, the judicial case file was mislaid, only to appear two months later.96 The CEH said that as of October 1998 the judicial proceeding had still not been held.97 76. In this context, the CEH said that the attorneys hired and paid for by the Army, who were jointly defending the soldiers, impeded the proceeding's progress.98 They said that those lawyers were publicly censured for lodging numerous applications, some of which were clearly out of order, in addition to motions for recusal and dismissal designed to delay the proceeding without justification and to have the prosecutor in charge of the case disqualified along with institutions, such as MINUGUA, which were independently monitoring the case to ensure it proceeded correctly.99 77. The CEH offered the following conclusions on the investigation conducted up until the release of its report: [W]ithin the time limits of its mandate, it has also reached the firm conclusion that in the judicial proceeding in connection with this massacre, the State of Guatemala is in gross dereliction of its duty to investigate the facts in order to punish those responsible, thus violating the right to justice. This failure to comply with the duty to investigate has been visible, in particular, in the lack of independence of the courts and the absence of cooperation, if not obstruction, by the Guatemalan Army.100 78. On March 3, 1998, Ms. Menchú presented a brief to the Sentencing Court for Criminal Matters, Drug Trafficking, and Environmental Crimes of the Department of Alta Verapaz, in which she expressed her concern at the court's delay in holding the public oral stage of the proceeding.101 79. On April 16, 1998, the same court issued a ruling that contained a decision on the evidence that would be admitted in the proceeding.102 That same day, the plaintiff Rigoberta Menchú filed an application for constitutional relief (amparo), saying that the court had arbitrarily rejected evidence. That evidence consisted of photographs of the scene and the injured persons, reports of the UNHCR and MINUGUA, forensic reports, and videos from the Public Prosecution Service, among others.103 The application added that, by contrast, the court had unlawfully accepted evidence put forward by the defense that consisted of witness statements with no indication as to the requirements stipulated by law, as well as evidence provided by 94 Annex 15. Order instituting trial proceedings of May 7, 1997, Second Court of First Instance for Criminal Matters, Drug Trafficking and Environmental Crimes of the Department of Alta Verapaz, Coban Enclosed with the petitioners' communication received on March 30, 1999. 95 Annex 16. Petitioners' communication of February 26, 1998. 96 Annex 16. Petitioners' communication of February 26, 1998. 97 Annex 2. CEH, Guatemala: Memory of Silence, Volume VI, Illustrative Cases, Annex 1, Illustrative Case No. 3: Xamán Massacre. 98 Annex 2. CEH, Guatemala: Memory of Silence, Volume VI, Illustrative Cases, Annex 1, Illustrative Case No. 3: Xamán Massacre. 99 Annex 2. CEH, Guatemala: Memory of Silence, Volume VI, Illustrative Cases, Annex 1, Illustrative Case No. 3: Xamán Massacre. 100 Massacre. Annex 2. CEH, Guatemala: Memory of Silence, Volume VI, Illustrative Cases, Annex 1, Illustrative Case No. 3: Xamán 101 Annex 17. Official letter from Rigoberta Menchú dated March 3, 1998. Enclosed with the petitioners' communication of March 18, 1998. 102 Annex 18. Order of the Sentencing Court for Criminal Matters, Drug Trafficking, and Environmental Crimes of the Department of Alta Verapaz, Coban, April 16, 1998. Enclosed with the petitioners' communication of March 30, 1999. 103 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. 17