the measures adopted with respect to other suspects in the same case, particularly Mr. Presida, who was appointed a public defender,215 and Mr. Argüello, who was appointed such a defender when his counsel had health problems.216 It was not until the day of the dismissal that Mrs. Acosta's representative was granted leave to intervene in the proceedings.217 120. In addition to the lack of counsel between the opening of the investigation for alleged abetment and the acquittal, the Commission notes that, despite the fact that Mrs. Acosta had to leave the city for Chinandega for security reasons after her husband's murder, the court refused to allow her to give her statement in that investigation from her location, where she had gone, as mentioned, for security reasons. Thus, even though the judge was aware of the possible danger to María Luisa Acosta in the city of Bluefields, he dismissed that request "in the interest of ensuring that the other parties in the proceeding [had] a genuine opportunity to exercise their rights,”218 and he ordered the forces of public order to bring María Luisa Acosta to his court in Bluefields.219 The Commission considers that this situation, coupled with the absence of defense counsel in the terms described, constituted an abridgment of Mrs. Acosta's right to defend herself. 121. The Commission also notes that, in spite of the fact that Mr. Tsokos used expressions that Mrs. Acosta found disrespectful and offensive, such as that her pointing the finger at him “flirted with the desperation and stupidity of someone who had lost her mind," nothing was done to ensure that said person did not violate the obligations that the parties were required to satisfy under the Organic Law of the Judiciary, specifically, the duty to behave with "respect" and “probity.” 122. The Commission highlights that although all these aspects were raised by Mrs. Acosta in the five disciplinary complaints that she presented to the Committee for Disciplinary Matters of the Supreme Court of Justice, the latter ignored those allegations. The Commission notes that the PDDH itself found that the omission to respond to any of those complaints “violate[d] Mrs. María Luisa Acosta’s right of access to prompt justice by reason of the delay thereof…” As the established facts show, despite the fact that the Supreme Court of Justice was recommended to respond to Mrs. Acosta's complaints about behavior of the judicial authorities in the proceedings against her, the Supreme Court did not implement those recommendations, which led the PDDH declare that it was guilty of contempt (desacato).220 123. Based on the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the State violated Mrs. María Luisa Acosta's right to defend herself. Furthermore, the Commission finds that when analyzed together, (i) the opening of this investigation into Mrs. Acosta based exclusively on the claims of the possible instigators that she was accusing, despite the fact that those claims were out of step with reality, as the case file before the respective authority showed; (ii) the imposition of obstacles preventing Mrs. Acosta from participating properly in this proceeding; and (iii) the complete lack of a response to the disciplinary complaints about the behavior of the judicial authorities, lead to the conclusion that the investigation was a mechanism to harass and intimidate Mrs. Acosta because of the charge that the motive for her husband's murder had to do with her work as a defender of human rights. This conclusion is further strengthened when one contrasts the opening of this completely baseless investigation with the above-described omission to carry out a meaningful and 215Appendix 164. Order, Bluefields District Criminal Court, June 3, 2002 Trial court file No. 110-02, folio 75. Appendix to the petitioners' communication of July 13, 2007. 216Appendix 165. Judicial notice issued by the Bluefields District Criminal Court, December 12, 2002 Trial court file No. 110-02, folio 264. Appendix to the petitioners' communication of July 13, 2007. 217Appendix 89. Order issued by the Bluefields District Criminal Court, May 13, 2002 Trial court file No. 110-02, folio 181. Appendix to the petitioners' communication of July 13, 2007. 218Appendix 81. Order issued by the Bluefields District Criminal Court, April 25, 2002 Trial court file No. 110-02, folio 139. Appendix to the petitioners' communication of July 13, 2007. 219Appendix 82. Order issued by the Bluefields District Criminal Court, April 26, 2002 Trial court file, folio 148. Appendix to the petitioners' communication of July 13, 2007. 220Appendix 159. Final Follow-Up Report, Case File No. 154-2003, State Attorney for the Defense of Human Rights, June 10, 2004. Appendix to the petitioners' communication of July 13, 2007.