3 medical attention. She points out that Mrs. Balbina Rodríguez “spent almost a year as a complete invalid and was reduced to a wheelchair”; while she recovered her ability to walk, the “terrible physical and psychological aftereffects” she suffered allegedly left her capacity for work permanently diminished. 11. The petitioner states that because of what happened, on January 28, 1999 Mrs. Balbina Rodríguez filed a complaint against Dr. Julio César Zumeta, thereby initiating the criminal case in the domestic courts for the injuries she sustained. 3 The petitioner points out that although on June 28, 1999, the Lara State Criminal Court of First Instance issued the order for Dr. Zumeta to stand trial for criminal negligence resulting in grievous personal injuries, when the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter “the COPP”) entered into force in July 1999 the case was later referred back to the Public Prosecutor’s Office, after which, the petitioner alleges, the entire process had to be restarted from the beginning of the investigation, even though it had already be concluded. Thereafter, the petitioner alleges, the case got bogged down in the preliminary phase. 4 12. The petitioner points that she served as her daughter’s legal representative in an unsuccessful bid to keep the case moving forward in the face of delays that she blames on the authorities in the justice system. 5 She contends that the Public Prosecutor’s Office allowed time to slip away until criminal prosecution would be time barred; she claims further that the Public Prosecutor’s Office failed to issue the closing statement necessary to wrap up the preliminary phase within a reasonable period of time. 6 She also alleges that the final outcome of the criminal case hinged on the how quickly the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the judges acted to conduct the proceedings; however, because of an unwarranted delay, the facts allegedly went unpunished and her daughter was denied access to justice. 13. The petitioner observes that the Public Prosecutor’s Office presented its closing statement on October 19, 2001 in the form of an indictment brought against one of the accused physicians for the crime of “criminal negligence resulting in grievous personal injury.” On September 24, 2002, the Seventh Preliminary Proceedings Court agreed to hear the indictment and also dismissed the case against the other three accused physicians. The petitioner states that she challenged this decision by filing an appeal on September 30, 2002. She also asserts that on September 29, 2003, she filed a supervening appeal, since the first appeal she filed had not yet been decided. She contends that no decision was delivered on either appeal, so that on November 18 and December 1, 2003, she filed a petition with the Court of Appeals of the Criminal Judicial Circuit for Metropolitan Caracas (hereinafter “AMC”) seeking a writ of constitutional amparo and unspecified precautionary measures. That appeal was decided on December 8, 2003, by the Court of Appeals of the Criminal Judicial Circuit for the AMC, which ordered that the case be sent to the 3 A case was also brought with the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Lara State Medical Association, which ended in a penalty of a “written and public reprimand” against Dr. Julio César Zumeta, by virtue of a decision of the Appeals Court of the Venezuelan Medical Federation on August 28, 2001. 4 The petitioner explains that the Code of Criminal Prosecution was the law that regulated criminal procedure at the time the case was instituted and that was supplanted when the COPP entered into force. Under the COPP, the Public Prosecutor’s Office gained exclusive prosecutorial authority. 5 She explains that she intervened in the process by filing a criminal complaint against Drs. Julio Zumeta, Grover Castellón, Marlene Mujica and Alexis Manuel Lamus. The Seventh Preliminary Proceedings Court for the Lara State Judicial Circuit agreed to hear her complaint on January 31, 2000. 6 She contends that she once petitioned the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic to disqualify the prosecutor assigned to the case. However, her petition was dismissed as out of order and, because it was found to be out of order, Mrs. Balbina Rodríguez was fined pursuant to the Organic Law of the Public Prosecutor’s Office then in force. She alleges that because of that decision, she never petitioned for disqualification of the prosecutors assigned to the case.