70 competence” and therefore it should be forwarded once again to the Second Criminal, Drug Trafficking and Environmental Crimes Trial Court for it to continue with the established competence;128 134.51. once it received the proceeding on February 19, 1999, the Second Criminal, Drug Trafficking and Environmental Crimes Trial Court posed, on its own motion, a “query on competence” to hear the case, and the judicial records were therefore forwarded to the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice for it to decide which court should continue to hear the case;129 134.52. on March 11, 1999, the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court declared the Third Criminal, Drug Trafficking and Environmental Crimes Trial Court competent to hear the oral trial in this case. In that same ruling, it ordered that the case records be forwarded to the Second Criminal, Drug Trafficking and Environmental Crimes Court of First Instance for it to clearly, precisely, and in a detailed manner specify the punishable act ascribed to the defendants, since it had not done so in a concrete manner in its January 28, 1999 ruling;130 134.53. pursuant to the previous ruling, on March 18, 1999, Judge Henry Monroy Andrino of the Second Criminal Court of First Instance expanded and specified the January 28, 1999 ruling (supra para. 134.49). Judge Monroy Andrino’s order included, inter alia, the following items: 1) Edgar Augusto Godoy Gaitán, as Head of the Presidential General Staff, together with Juan Valencia Osorio and Juan Guillermo Oliva Carrera, Head and Deputy Head of the Presidential Security Department of the Presidential General Staff, respectively, planned and ordered a plan to keep watch on and physically eliminate Myrna Mack Chang; 2) said plan consisted of monitoring the activities of the victim, especially through constant surveillance of her house and following her personally; 3) the plan culminated with the physical elimination of the victim, carried out by Noel de Jesús Beteta Álvarez, assigned to the Presidential Security Department of the Presidential General Staff, together with other unidentified persons; 4) the accused planned and ordered the death of Myrna Mack Chang because they deemed that the anthropologist had ties with the communities of resisting population and that her investigations on the displaced population groups affected military strategy and harmed the image of the State; and 5) once the murder had been committed, the accused sought to cover up the crime, carrying out acts of intimidation, ordering alterations to and disappearance of documents, as well as influencing the refusal to provide information to the representative of the Public Prosecutor’s Office;131 128 Cf. ruling of the Third Criminal, Drug Trafficking and Environmental Crimes Trial Court of February 16, 1999 (file with annexes to the brief answering the application and raising preliminary objections, leaves 7721 to 7722). 129 Cf. query regarding competence of the Second Criminal, Drug Trafficking and Environmental Crimes Trial Court dated February 19, 1999 (file with annexes to the brief answering the application and raising preliminary objections, leaves 7724 to 7727). 130 Cf. writ issued by the Third Criminal, Drug Trafficking and Environmental Crimes Trial Court on March 11, 1999 (file with annexes to the brief answering the application and raising preliminary objections, leaf 7729). 131 Cf. ruling by the Second Criminal, Drug Trafficking and Environmental Crimes Court of First Instance dated March 18, 1999 (file with annexes to the application, annex 36, leaves 719 to 734 and file with annexes to the brief answering the application and raising preliminary objections, leaves 7731 to 7744); and testimony of Henry Monroy Andrino rendered before the Court on February 19, 2003.