107 203. In the chapter on proven facts, lack of diligence and of willingness of the courts was demonstrated, as regards moving the criminal proceeding forward to elucidate all the facts pertaining to the death of Myrna Mack Chang and to punish all those responsible. The Court will not analyze here the actions of each of the courts that lacked due diligence (amparo remedies, constitutional motions, objections to judges, interlocutory motions, motions regarding lack of competence, appeals for annulment, requests for exemption under the National Reconciliation Law, among others), but as an example it will only refer to the use of amparo remedies, the filing and processing of which led those in charge of the criminal proceeding to incur notorious delays in the instant case. It should be recalled, as the State expressly affirmed in the May 29, 2001, report to the Inter-American Commission, that “[t]he Government of Guatemala acknowledges that there have been procedural vicissitudes, partly derived from excessive use of procedural remedies, but ones that must be respected by the Government and the authorities […].”262 204. In the instant case the defendants have filed at least twelve amparo remedies, as shown in the chapter on proven facts, all of which were found inadmissible by the respective judicial authorities. The Court also notes, as pointed out by the Commission and the representatives of the next of kin of the victim, that these amparo actions paralyzed the proceeding for more than three years. The judicial authorities did not process the amparo remedies with due diligence, for them to be a rapid and effective remedy, but rather allowed them to become a tactic to delay the proceeding, as it can be heard by up to four different instances. 205. In this regard, the representatives of the next of kin of the victim pointed out that “[a]dministrating the amparo remedy in this manner [...] distorts the meaning of the action, which becomes a means of fostering, permitting and tolerating discussion in four different instances –e.g. the judge in charge of the investigation, the appellate chamber, the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court – of almost all the court rulings, including those that are merely routine procedures.” 206. The Court notes that, as stated in the text entitled “Ley de Amparo, Exhibición Personal y de Constitucionalidad”, and according to the expert testimony of Henry El Khoury, the law itself places the amparo courts under the obligation to process and rule on all amparo remedies filed against any judicial authority for any procedural act. Therefore, the law itself places said courts under the obligation to process any amparo remedy, even if it is “patently inadmissible,” as the various remedies filed in this case were found to be. 207. However, the Court calls attention to the fact that in the criminal proceeding under discussion, frequent filing of this remedy, although permissible according to the law, has been tolerated by the judicial authorities. This Court deems that the domestic judge, as a competent authority to direct the proceeding, has the duty to channel it in such a manner as to restrict the disproportionate use of actions whose effect is to delay the proceeding. Processing of the amparo remedies together with their respective appeals was, in turn, conducted without complying with the legal terms, as the Guatemalan courts took on average six months to decide each one. This situation caused a paralysis of the criminal proceeding. 262 Cf. report by the Government of the Republic of Guatemala to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, pages 2 and 3 (file with annexes to the application, annex 10, leaves 232 to 233).