-43Blanca Rosa Galdámez de Franco to testify as witnesses because, on those dates, the prosecutor informed the court that he “had heard out-of-court [… that these persons c[ould] provide information that w[ould] help clarify the facts under investigation.” The last four of the five persons indicated as witnesses by the prosecutor and summoned by the court were also proposed as witnesses before the Inter-American Court by the State’s Agents in their brief of October 31, 2003, filing preliminary objections, answering the application and providing observations on the requests and arguments brief (supra para. 5). On October 17 and 23, 2003, the following day and the same day as the Chalatenango Trial Court had issued the summons, the testimonies of these five witnesses were heard; they stated, inter alia, that they did not know that Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano Cruz were the daughters of María Victoria Cruz Franco and that they did not know the girls. 48(71) On October 29, 2003, the prosecutor assigned to the case filed a brief before the Chalatenango Trial Court, in which he requested that María Esperanza Franco Orellana de Miranda should be summoned again, because “he h[ad] heard out-ofcourt that the said witness ha[d] information which c[ould] lead to clarification of the facts under investigation.” The same day, instead of summoning Mrs. Franco Orellana, the Chalatenango Trial Court “summon[ed] María Victoria CRUZ FRANCO to appear [… on October 29].” This summons was delivered to the prosecutor assigned to the case. On October 29, 2003, the day that the summons was issued in the name of Mrs. Cruz Franco, María Esperanza Franco Orellana de Miranda made a second statement before the Chalatenango Trial Court. In this statement, Mrs. Orellana de Miranda, contradicting what she had said in her first statement made on September 23, 1997, before the Chalatenango Trial Court (supra para. 48(35)), stated that “it [was] not true that [… she had seen] the children, Erlinda and Ernestina SERRANO descend from a helicopter or get into a Red Cross vehicle[, … because] she had never known or seen the [Serrano Cruz sisters] or heard their names before.” María Esperanza Franco Orellana de Miranda was also proposed as a witness before the Inter-American Court by the State’s Agents in their brief of October 31, 2003, filing preliminary objections, answering the application and providing observations on the requests and arguments brief (supra para. 5). 48(72) On July 2, 2004, the assigned prosecutor filed a brief before the Chalatenango Trial Court in which he stated that “he consider[ed] it necessary to inspect” the baptismal records of the Parish of San Juan Bautista in Chalatenango, because “he ha[d] heard that the child, Ernestina [(sic)] Serrano, [had been] baptized in this parish.” Accordingly, to “verify the authenticity of [these] records,” he requested that an official communication should be sent “to the Technical and Scientific Police Unit [requesting them to make a] graphalogical analysis.” On August 25, 2004, the prosecutor requested the court to correct the name, Ernestina, which should have been Erlinda; the same day the court corrected the name. 48(73) On July 8, 2004, the Chalatenango Trial Court indicated that the graphalogical analysis should be made on August 17, 2004, during the judicial inspection of the baptismal registration of Erlinda Serrano Cruz in the baptismal records of the parish of San Juan Bautista. However, the Technical and Scientific Police Unit indicated that no experts were available on that date; consequently, the court decided that it should be made on September 2, 2004. Given the change of date decided by the Chalatenango Trial Court for this inspection, on August 19, 2004, the prosecutor assigned to the case indicated that taking this measure on the later date “[was] too late[, …] because the hearing before the Inter-American Court was imminent.” He therefore asked for a new date and time to be established for conducting the judicial