facts attributed to accused Vladimiro Montesinos Torres, Nicolás de Bari Hermoza Ríos, Roberto Huamán Ascurra and Jesús Zamudio Aliaga.245 197. The Special Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima acted on April 2, 2003 to partially overturn the June 11, 2002 order (supra para. 183) and agreed to open investigation of Juan Fernando Dianderas Ottone, Martín Solari de la Fuente and Herbert Danilo Ángeles Villanueva to be charged as accessories to a crime. 246 198. The Third Special Criminal Chamber ordered the opening of a summary investigation on June 30, 2003 and issued a warrant for house arrest against Juan Fernando Dianderas Ottone, Martín Solari de la Fuente and Herbert Danilo Ángeles Villanueva. 247 199. The process underway for the crime of serving as an accessory in injury of the State was joined with the ongoing murder process against Vladimiro Montesinos Torres et al., on August 12, 2003.248 200. Based on the expert reports and testimonies, the Specialized Provincial Prosecutor held on April 14, 2003 that criminal liability had been established for Vladimiro Montesinos Torres, Nicolás de Bari Hermoza Ríos and Roberto Huamán Ascurra for the crime of murder of Herma Luz Meléndez Cueva and Víctor Salomón Peceros Pedraza. He also found that they were criminally liable, along with Jesús Zamudio Aliaga, for the same crime against Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez.249 201. The State was held as a third party holding civil liability in the process in the ordinary courts, based on a motion by the plaintiffs on October 3, 2003. 250 202. The Third Special Criminal Chamber responded on October 15, 2004 to the motions lodged by the defendants and ordered the immediate release of Vladimiro Montesinos Torres, Nicolás de Bari Hermoza Ríos and Roberto Edmundo Huamán Ascurra, finding that “the usual period of detention […] had fully lapsed, not due to any negligence of action by this court, but because the records were forwarded with the final reports to the Special Superior Criminal Chamber on November [3], 2003, and remained eight months in that stage before being returned on July [7], 2004.”251 203. The First Special Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima filed a motion on March 21, 2005 with the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court, asking it to determine which court should hear the case, given the changes in the legal status of one of the people being Cf. Order by the Third Special Criminal Chamber, September 9, 2002 (evidence file, volume II, annex 30 to the case submission brief, folios 919 to 920). 245 Cf. Ruling by the Special Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima, April 2, 2003 (evidence file, volume II, annex 27 to the case submission brief, folios 891 to 894). 246 247 Cf. Order by the Third Special Criminal Chamber, June 30, 2003 (evidence file, volume II, annex 28 to the case submission brief, folios 906 to 910). Cf. Order by the Third Special Criminal Chamber, August 12, 2003 (evidence file, volume II, annex 29 to the case submission brief, folio 917). 248 249 634). Cf. Prosecution hearing, April 14, 2003 (evidence file, volume I, annex 8 to the case submission brief, folio Cf. Order by the Third Special Criminal Chamber, October 03, 2003 (evidence file, volume II, annex 31 to the case submission brief, folio 922). 250 Orders by the Special Criminal Chamber, October 15, 2004 (evidence file, volume II, annex 33 to the case submission brief, folios 928 to 933). 251