27 the field tests [established by law] carried out by experts [of the Criminal Laboratory and that of Forensic Sciences of the Office of the Public Prosecutor] were negative.” According to the report issued by said Laboratory on May 4, 1998 the material consisted of “[t]hree (3) plastic bags, containing white powder,” on which an analysis was practiced pursuant to the methodology of color trials, for the identification and determination of the purity of the sample.48 54(28) On September 9, 1998 the Sectional Court of First Instance of Tela determined the absolute nullity of the actions as of and including the ruling of April 6, 1998 (supra para. 54(26)), in virtue of the existence of procedural irregularities in the furnishing of the evidentiary elements.49 54(29) On September 24, 1998 the Sectional Court of First Instance of Tela, considering the absolute nullity ordered (supra para. 54(28)), declared the first evidentiary period of ten days definitely closed and the second evidentiary period of thirty days for the furnishing of the means of evidence proposed by the parties open.50 54(30) On February 22, 1999 the Sectional Court of First Instance of Tela declared the second evidentiary period of thirty days definitely closed and notified the parties so they could present their respective conclusions. On March 10, 1999 said Court ordered the absolute nullity of the actions as of the date in which the Office of the Public Prosecutor was notified that it could prepare its conclusions, since the mentioned ruling of February 22 had not been notified to the main agent of the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic.51 54(31) On October 20, 2000 the Sectional Court of First Instance of Tela decided that having had enough time and not being able to locate the witnesses appointed, belonging to the Office of Criminal Investigation, it was convenient to summon the parties to hear the final judgment.52 48 Cf. ruling issued by the Sectional Court of First Instance of Tela on April 13, 1998 (dossier of appendixes to the response to the petition, volume I, folio 307); report issued by the Toxicological Chemical Laboratory of the Office of the Public Prosecutor of Honduras, signed by Vivian Castillo, analyst, and Francisco Herrera, regional director, and that was sent to the attorney Álvaro Raul Cerrato on May 4, 1998 (dossier of appendixes to the response to the petition, volume I, folios 345 and 346), and judgment issued by the Sectional Court of First Instance of Tela on January 13, 2003 (dossier of appendixes to the response to the petition, volume II, folios 827 through 829) . 49 Cf. interlocutory decision issued by the Sectional Court of First Instance of Tela on September 9, 1998 (dossier of appendixes to the response to the petition, volume I, folios 397 and 398), and brief of the representatives of Messrs. Luis Ángel Acosta and Alfredo López-Álvarez of August 11, 1998 (dossier of appendixes to the response to the petition, volume I, folios 392 and 393). 50 Cf. ruling issued by the Sectional Court of First Instance of Tela on September 24, 1998 (dossier of appendixes to the response to the petition, volume I, folio 400). 51 Cf. ruling issued by the Sectional Court of First Instance of Tela on February 22, 1999 (dossier of appendixes to the response to the petition, volume II, folio 477); ruling issued by the Sectional Court of First Instance of Tela on March 10, 1999 (dossier of appendixes to the response to the petition, volume II, folio 484), and brief of March 8, 1999 of the prosecutor of the Office of Public Prosecutors through which he requests that the absolute nullity of the acts be declared (dossier of appendixes to the response to the petition, volume II, folios 482 and 483). 52 Cf. ruling issued by the Sectional Court of First Instance of Tela on October 20, 2000 (dossier of appendixes to the response to the petition, volume II, folio 579).