67 134.41. pursuant to the rulings, all the case records were forwarded to the First Criminal Trial Court of First Instance.108 On November 12, 1996, this Court ordered the joinder of the proceeding against Beteta Álvarez and that against the alleged accessories, as well as continuation of the proceeding in the state in which it was at that time.109 The Public Prosecutor filed an expansion and clarification remedy against that ruling, as in the proceeding against Beteta Álvarez there was res judicata and there was no certainty regarding the procedural stage at which the joinder of both proceedings would take place.110 On December 3, 1996, the Court found the remedy to be in order and ruled that the joinder would be effective with respect to defendants Edgar Augusto Godoy Gaitán, Juan Valencia Osorio and Juan Guillermo Oliva Carrera, and not with respect to Noel de Jesús Beteta Álvarez; it also annulled all actions in the case carried out under the new Criminal Procedures Code, including the investigation carried out by the representative of the Public Prosecutor’s Office under the new Code, as it was conducted by an authority who was not competent for this.111 The private accuser112 and the Public Prosecutor’s Office113 filed appeals against this ruling. Both appeals were found inadmissible by Tenth Chamber of the Court of Appeals114; 134.42. on August 12, 1997, the Constitutional Court decided to grant the amparo remedies requested by the private accuser and the Public Prosecutor’s Office (supra para. 134.40) regarding the matter of which court was competent to continue the proceeding with respect to the murder of Myrna Mack Chang and it decided that the proceeding should continue to be processed under the rules of the Criminal Procedures Code in force. The Constitutional Court decided to grant the amparo to the applicants and to “definitively suspend” the October 15, 1996 ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice, according to which the First Criminal Court of First Instance was the competent court to hear the criminal proceeding, as well as to “definitively suspend” all subsequent actions carried out under the Criminal Procedures Code that had been repealed;115 108 Cf. writ issued by the First Criminal Trial Court of First Instance of October 23, 1996 (file with annexes to the brief answering the application and raising preliminary objections, leaf 5540). 109 Cf. ruling by the First Criminal Trial Court of First Instance of November 12, 1996 (file with annexes to the brief answering the application and raising preliminary objections, leaves 5550 to 5552). 110 Cf. expansion and clarification remedy (file with annexes to the brief answering the application and raising preliminary objections, leaves 5559 to 5562). 111 Cf. ruling by the First Criminal Trial Court of First Instance of December 3, 1996 (file with annexes to the brief answering the application and raising preliminary objections, leaves 5582 to 5587). 112 Cf. appeal before the First Criminal Trial Court of First Instance (file with annexes to the brief answering the application and raising preliminary objections, leaves 5606 to 5609). 113 Cf. appeal before the First Criminal Trial Court of First Instance (file with annexes to the brief answering the application and raising preliminary objections, leaves 5594 to 5596). 114 Cf. Order of the Tenth Chamber of the Court of Appeals of April 3, 1997 (file with annexes to the brief answering the application and raising preliminary objections, leaves 5814 to 5816). 115 Cf. Judgment of the Constitutional Court of August 12, 1997 (file with annexes to the application, annex 33, leaves 676 to 697 and file with annexes to the brief answering the application and raising preliminary objections, leaves 6221 to 6242).