70. On March 3, 2008, the first hearing of the criminal proceedings was held before the Magistrate’s Court of Cacaopera, department of Morazán. The presumed victim was not present because “she had not been taken to the court by agents of the Section for the Transfer of Defendants of the Eastern Zone of San Miguel, due to lack of personnel.”141 During the hearing, the prosecution ratified the request that a formal investigation be ordered with the pretrial detention of the presumed victim. Manuela’s defense counsel indicated that he did not agree with this request because Manuela was unaware of how long she had been pregnant and “the result of the autopsy of the newborn was not yet [available], and it [was] not known if it was born alive or dead, because [Manuela] allege[d] that she felt the need to defecate and she went to the toilet and perhaps that was where she had delivered the baby; in other words, there is a possibility that it was a miscarriage and not a homicide.”142 The lawyer indicated that “it can be established that an offense existed […] but a doubt exists regarding criminal participation,” and therefore requested that a formal investigation be ordered without pretrial detention.143 71. The court considered that there were “sufficient indications to be able to order the formal investigation with pretrial detention, because […] the existence of the crime had been established, as well as the probable participation of the defendant.”144 The court indicated that: […] the pretrial detention of [Manuela] is appropriate in order to safeguard the investigation into the truth of the facts, […] added to this, it is presumed that the said defendant will try to evade the punishment imposed on the crime committed, and she may obstruct the specific investigation measures by removing, hiding and even threatening witnesses; in addition, the said crime committed by the defendant against her newborn son has caused public alarm among the villagers of Las Mesas […] who condemn this unacceptable act executed by [the presumed victim].145 72. The court also indicated that from “the evidence collected to date, it is certain that the deceased newborn child was the son of the defendant […]; therefore, it is established that the said defendant intended to hide and destroy the product of conception, because she was able to hide her pregnancy very well, without her family members perceiving it.”146 In addition, it indicated that her detention would continue in the maternity ward where she was receiving medical care.147 73. On March 6, 2008, the Second Trial Court of San Francisco Gotera issued the formal order to open the preliminary proceedings against Manuela for the offense of aggravated homicide, called for a preliminary hearing, and ratified the precautionary measure of pretrial detention.148 The same day, Manuela was discharged from hospital and taken to the cells of Cf. Magistrate’s Court of Cacaopera, department of Morazán. Record of initial hearing on March 3, 2008 (evidence file, folio 72). 141 Cf. Magistrate’s Court of Cacaopera, department of Morazán. Record of initial hearing on March 3, 2008 (evidence file, folio 74). 142 Cf. Magistrate’s Court of Cacaopera, department of Morazán. Record of initial hearing on March 3, 2008 (evidence file, folio 75). 143 Cf. Magistrate’s Court of Cacaopera, department of Morazán. Record of initial hearing on March 3, 2008 (evidence file, folio 75). 144 Cf. Magistrate’s Court of Cacaopera, department of Morazán. Record of initial hearing on March 3, 2008 (evidence file, folio 81). 145 Cf. Magistrate’s Court of Cacaopera, department of Morazán. Record of initial hearing on March 3, 2008 (evidence file, folio 82). 146 Cf. Magistrate’s Court of Cacaopera, department of Morazán. Record of initial hearing on March 3, 2008 (evidence file, folio 83). 147 148 Cf. Second Trial Court of San Francisco Gotera. Order of March 6, 2008 (evidence file, folio 1868). 25