52 Supreme Court so that it would proceed to execute the extradition, requesting “that it be processed promptly.” 61(115) On September 7, 2001, the complainant requested that, in view of the decision of June 5, 2001, the letter rogatory for the extradition of Alfredo Stroessner should be sent, and reiterated this on November 16, 2001. On May 7, 2002, the complainant asked that an official letter be sent to the Paraguayan Ministry of Foreign Affairs requesting information on whether it had sent the letter rogatory on extradition to the Brazilian authorities and, if so, on the status of the respective process in Brazil. This request was repeated on August 30, 2002, in the same terms. 61(116) On November 29, 2001, the said Criminal Court prepared an official communication addressed to the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court, and sent it to the President of the Paraguayan Supreme Court of Justice so that the latter could forward it to the Brazilian authorities, in accordance with the norms of the 1992 Criminal Law Extradition Treaty and the Brazilian Act No. 6815 of August 19, 1980. 61(117) On September 9, 2002, the Third Criminal Court sent communication to the Paraguayan Ministry of Foreign Affairs requesting on whether the letter rogatory concerning the extradition of Alfredo requested of Brazil had been sent to the Brazilian Judiciary and, if so, status of the extradition procedure. an official information Stroessner the current 61(118) On June 22, 2004, the Court of Criminal Appeal in First Instance declared that the remedies of appeal and annulment filed by Stroessner’s defense lawyer against the ruling of the Criminal Court rejecting the request to accept his power of attorney as a defense counsel of the accused had been “granted improperly,” considering that “a representative of a defendant in contempt of court and willfully disobedient can hardly request judicial measures or avail himself of the benefits granted by the law if the defendant does not comply with the requirement of making himself available to the Court,” which “should not have granted the recourses that were filed.” 61(119) There is no evidence in the documentation provided to the Court of whether the letters rogatory concerning extradition were really forwarded to the Brazilian authorities or, if so, of the status of these procedures in Brazil. However, in its answer to the application, the State declared that, with regard to “Alfredo Stroessner, beneficiary of political asylum in Brazil, an extradition request is being processed by the courts of the Federative Republic of Brazil.” 61(120) At the time this judgment is delivered, six of the defendants have been detained and convicted. Of these, Pastor Milciades Coronel is deceased. The judgment is final with regard to Alberto Buenaventura Cantero, who desisted from the appeal that he had filed and requested parole, and Agustín Belotto Vouga, who had been granted parole. The defense lawyers of Lucilo Benítez, Camilo Almada Morel and Juan Aniceto Martínez presented remedies of appeal and annulment against the judgment convicting them, and these are pending before the First Chamber of the Criminal Court of Appeal, which has not delivered judgment. The preliminary investigation continues open with regard to Alfredo Stroessner Matiauda, declared “in contempt of court and willfully disobedient,” Sabino Augusto Montanaro, who was granted asylum in Honduras and whose arrest warrant has not been executed, and Eusebio Torres, declared “in contempt of court.” It is public knowledge