and information provided by Interpol on the record of Michael John Hill, convicted in the United Kingdom for theft, breaking and entry, fraud, possession of stolen goods, forgery, traffic violations and arson. 5.5 Concerning the appeal to annul the judgment of the High Court filed by the Hill brothers: “(a) Only Mr. Brian Anthony Hill appeared at the appeal proceedings. He appointed Mr. Gunther Rudiger Jorda as his lawyer, the same lawyer whom he and his brother had previously appointed and then dismissed five days before the trial; “5. Impoundment of the camper in connection with the civil liability imposed during the pre-trial proceedings. “6. Order terminating the pre-trial proceedings, issued by the court on 24 October 1985, and referral of the accused to the Provincial High Court of Valencia. Summons of the accused, who appointed a lawyer of their own choosing to conduct their defence. “(b) The two brothers submitted a statement to the Supreme Court which was included in their case file; “(c) As Mr. Rudiger Jorda could not represent the brothers in the Supreme Court, he requested that a legal aid lawyer be assigned to Brian Anthony Hill; “7. On 4 December 1985, the accused sent a statement to a subdivision of the Provincial High Court of Valencia, appointing Mr. Gunther Rudiger Jorda as their lawyer.” 5.4 “(d) A legal aid lawyer was assigned, but he did not find any grounds whatsoever to justify the appeal; Concerning the oral proceedings: “(e) A second legal aid lawyer, also appointed in accordance with article 876 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, did not find grounds for appeal either; “1. The defence lawyer chosen freely by the accused called only one witness, the same witness as had been produced by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, Mr. P., the eyewitness to the alleged crime. “(f) Two lawyers in succession found that there were no legal grounds for appeal. The proceedings were then referred to the Public Prosecutor’s Office, to see whether it could find grounds for appeal. The Public Prosecutor’s Office did not find grounds for appeal either and referred the case back; “2. On 22 October 1986, it was announced that the oral proceedings would take place on 3 November and the parties were duly notified. “3. On 28 October 1986, a representative of the defence lawyer communicated to the Chamber of the High Court hearing the case that, ‘as differences had arisen between the accused and the defence lawyer, he was withdrawing from the case’. “(g) An order was issued dismissing the appeal as not properly made and granting the appellant the right to appoint a lawyer of his choosing in order to put the appeal into proper legal form; “4. Court order for the accused to appoint a lawyer. The Hill brothers indicated that they wished to be assigned a legal aid lawyer. “(h) After he had failed to do so within the required time period, the case was filed; “(i) During that time, the accused had violated the conditions of their conditional release by abandoning the address in Spain which they had given and fleeing the country.” “5. Having been assigned a legal aid lawyer, they were informed on 31 October 1986 that the date of the trial would be 3 November 1986. Legal record of the trial on that day, in which the Chamber hearing the case, in view of the lack of time given to prepare the defence, agreed to adjourn the trial and reschedule it for 17 November 1986. 5.6 Concerning the conditional release: “On 14 July 1988, the Provincial High Court of Valencia, with the appeal to annual the judgment still pending, granted the Hill brothers a conditional release without bail and ordered them to appear on the first and fifteenth day of each month. The accused gave the British Embassy as their address, while they looked for an apartment.” “6. On 17 November 1986, oral proceedings took place. They opened with the defence submitting a statement by the accused on what had occurred, which was admitted by the Chamber; the direct opinion of the accused was thus made known. The trial was held, using the services of an interpreter, and the eyewitness was examined by both the prosecution and the defence. 5.7 Concerning the remedy of amparo: “On 16 August 1988, the Hill brothers initiated an action for amparo before the Constitutional Court, requesting that a legal aid lawyer be assigned to them. After a lawyer was appointed, the application for amparo was submitted. On 8 May 1989, the Constitutional Court issued a reasoned and substantiated ruling that the action for amparo was inadmissible.” “7. On 20 November 1986, the Provincial High Court of Valencia handed down its judgment, noting that the accused did not have a criminal record, and after examining the facts sentenced the Hill brothers to six years and one day in prison for the crime of arson and imposed civil liability for the damage caused by the fire.” 43