14 authority that would be in charge of his case. He should have been informed personally of some decisions. The Political Constitution of Honduras (hereinafter “the Constitution”) and the Law on Legal Protection of 1936 (hereinafter “Law on Legal Protection”), establish that the arrest warrant must be issued in writing, except in situations of flagrancy. In Mr. López Álvarez’s case there was an investigation prior to his arrest, of which the police authorities should have informed the Office of the Public Prosecutor. There is a clear constitutional stipulation regarding the separation between those being processed and those convicted. With regard to the imprisonment itself there is no legal stipulation that restricts a person’s right to express themselves in their mother tongue. Different bodies of the Office of the Public Prosecutor and of the Office of Criminal Investigation are in charge of maintaining the chain of custody of a sample of the substance seized, and its extraction must be made in the presence of a judge, of the clerk of the court, and of the defendant through his defense counsel. In this case there was a technical report from which it was concluded that the material analyzed was not a narcotic or a drug. This should have determined the release of Mr. López Álvarez, upon the request of the defense counsel or by an act ex officio of the Judge, pursuant to the stipulations included in the Code of Criminal Procedures of Honduras (hereinafter “Code of Criminal Procedures”) in force at that time. The Constitution, in force as of 1982, states the possibility that a person, even having been submitted to trial, could be released once they have offered enough bail or guarantee for said purpose. However, the Code of Criminal Procedures in force up to February 2002 limited this right only to those accused for crimes with a punishment no greater than 5 years. The Law on the Defendant without Conviction was applied to people who had not been convicted and that had already served a third of the average sentence they would be sentenced to if they were found guilty, with certain exceptions such as drug trafficking crimes, for which Mr. López Álvarez was being processed. In order to issue a commitment order under the legislation in force in 1997, it was necessary that two requirements be present: conclusive evidence that the crime was committed and reasonable evidence of the participation of a person in the same; in the present case those requirements were not present. There were irregularities, such as excessive abuse of the reversals by the representative of the Office of the Public Prosecutor and the admission of evidence that was absolutely irrelevant. With regard to the appeal of relief presented, the Appellate Court of La Ceiba rejected it; it simply denied it, which is the same as not having admitted it. Finally, he considers that the legislation adopted in 2002 implies great advances with regard to the one in force in 1997, but those processed in accordance with the previous procedure are not allowed to enjoy the benefits of the measures included in the new criminal legislation that may substitute the preventive detention. C) EVIDENCE ASSESSMENT Assessment of Documentary Evidence