This period was characterized by court decisions that excluded journalists in several judicial proceedings and by government efforts to investigate leaks to the press. On May 19, 2005, the chief judge of the Federal Court, José Fusté, ordered the FBI to investigate alleged leaks concerning a grand jury that is hearing a case concerning charges that auto dealer Braulio Agosto had violated environmental laws. The investigation, requested by Bert García, the federal district attorney in Puerto Rico, is the most recent attempt to find the source of information published in the press—El Nuevo Día and El Vocero—about the work of a grand jury. On June 1, Judge José Loubriel did not reach a decision on the imposition of new penalties and lawyers’ fees on El Vocero, at the petition of former Governor Sila M. Calderon, who claims that the newspaper violated the settlement reached at the end of February 2005 in the libel suit that she and her relatives had filed against the newspaper. In her petition, Calderon indicates that the same day the public apology stipulated by the two sides was published, the newspaper ran an article “that qualifies the content of the apology, distorting what was stipulated.” The case concerns a series of articles that El Vocero began on October 18, 2000 with a front-page headline about a servant who claimed that she had been mistreated by Calderón when she worked in her residence. At that time, Calderón was the Popular Party’s candidate for governor. As part of the settlement, the newspaper admitted that the articles were false and promised to publish an apology on the front page. It appeared in the February 23, 2005, edition. On June 9, the newspaper Primera Hora and journalist Rosalina Marrero Rodríguez filed a motion that halted the proceedings in the trial court of Carolina against actor Osvaldo Ríos after Judge Carmen Martínez Lugo granted a defense motion to hold the trial behind closed doors. The journalist’s motion is intended to protect the constitutional right of free press and rule 62.2 of Civil Procedure, which establishes that trials will be open except in cases where the court orders otherwise, because of the trial’s nature. Ríos is being tried for losses and damages and his ex-wife is demanding $1 million in damages. On August 2, the trial resumed and journalists were allowed to attend during the testimony of witnesses announced by the two sides. However, the judge did not allow journalists to attend during testimony of those involved in the damages case nor their expert witnesses. On June 17, the Senate refused to set requirements for journalists or media technicians, which can be interpreted as blocking free access to the Capitol and other Senate facilities. The clarification came up after the superintendent of the Capitol ordered the Senate and Chamber of Representatives press offices to demand that television channels provide an insurance policy as a condition for covering sessions in the legislative chamber. The superintendent requested a legal opinion from the Legislative Services Office about whether the media are exempt from the requirement to obtain an insurance policy as private entities do. On September 1, Appeals Court Judge Hiram Sánchez Martínez ruled that excluding journalists from preliminary hearings when undercover agents or prisoners testify is a violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This decision is the result of a challenge by the newspaper El Vocero to an amendment to Rule 23 of Criminal Procedure which permits the exclusion of journalists from preliminary hearings if prisoners or undercover agents testify. The Superior Court had ruled against the newspaper “for lack of current authorization” and because the newspaper’s reporter was only excluded once, which “does not constitute damage to press freedom.” Judge Sánchez Martínez ruled that the newspaper did have valid authorization and that in Puerto Rico, according to the federal Supreme Court there is “right to public access to preliminary hearings in accordance with the First Amendment to the federal Constitution with reservations.” Journalists can be excluded in “very limited circumstances” and it is up to the court to decide each case “on the basis of concrete and specific facts."