61 134.24. private accuser Helen Mack Chang filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals against the February 12, 1993 judgment of the Third Criminal Trial Court of First Instance, without participation of the Public Prosecutor’s Office. In said remedy, she requested that the proceeding remain open against Edgar Augusto Godoy Gaitán, Juan Valencia Osorio, Juan Guillermo Oliva Carrera, Juan José Larios, Juan José del Cid Morales and an individual whose surname is Charchal, as accessories in the murder of her sister Myrna Mack Chang.65 The defense counsel for Noel de Jesús Beteta Álvarez also filed an appeal for annulment of said conviction. On April 28, 1993, the Fourth Chamber of the Court of Appeals rejected the remedy filed by the private accuser, confirming the contested judgment.66 The private accuser filed an expansion remedy for the Court of Appeals to explain “the legal and doctrinary grounds” for not leaving open the proceeding against the other persons accused.67 This remedy was rejected on June 14, 1993 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of Appeals,68 for which reason the private accuser filed an appeal for annulment of the respective decision before the Supreme Court of Justice;69 134.25. on February 9, 1994 the Supreme Court of Justice found the appeal for annulment filed by the private accuser to be in order; it found the remedy filed by Noel de Jesús Beteta to be out of order; it annulled the decision of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of Appeals, and it left open the proceeding against Edgar Augusto Godoy Gaitán, Juan Valencia Osorio, Juan Guillermo Oliva Carrera, Juan José Larios, Juan José del Cid Morales, and an individual whose surname is Charchal. In this ruling, the Supreme Court of Justice established that Helen Mack Chang’s right to due process was abridged, because “she was inhibited from continuing to exercise her right to accuse, so that the possible participation of all the accused could be established in a single proceeding, especially because the records lead to infer suspicions of their possible involvement in committing said crime;”70 Delays in the criminal proceeding against the alleged accessories 64 Cf. Order of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of Appeals of May 21, 1993 (file with evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case submitted by the State on October 13 and 27, 2003, leaves 10743 to 10744). 65 Cf. Judgment of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of Appeals of April 28, 1993 (file with annexes to the application, annex 18, leaves 453 to 486); and report by the Comisión para el Esclarecimiento Histórico, “Guatemala, memoria del silencio,” volume VI, pages 235 to 244 (file with annexes to the application, annex 42, leaves 788 to 793). 66 Cf. Judgment of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of Appeals of April 28, 1993 (file with annexes to the application, annex 18, leaves 453 to 486). 67 Cf. extension remedy before the Fourth Chamber of the Court of Appeals of April 30, 1993 (file with evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case submitted by the State on October 13 and 27, 2003, leaves 10749 to 10752). 68 Cf. application by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of June 19, 2001 (dossier on the merits and possible reparations, volume I, leaf 23). 69 Cf. Ruling on the application, annex 70 Cf. Ruling on the application, annex appeal for 19, leaves appeal for 19, leaves review 490 to review 490 to by the Supreme Court of February 9, 1994 (file with annexes to 552). by the Supreme Court of February 9, 1994 (file with annexes to 552).