was delivered by the First Civil Chamber on October 27, 2000.157 On February 18, 2004, the Constitutional Court confirmed the January 29, 2004 decision.158 3. Guaglio or Pensions Case (Ham v. Monroy) 152. On October 8, 1999, the Head of the Administrative Area of the Office of the Director General of Pensions of the Treasury Ministry sent a memorandum to Ms. Andrade Salmón, then Mayor of La Paz, in which she was informed that the Government of La Paz had failed to make a payment on a debit memo. She was also advised that if payment was not made, the court case to compel payment of the amount owed would go forward in order to recover the monies that should have been paid into the pension system, to avoid social problems that would be prejudicial to pensioners as the fund would be unable to provide a lifetime pension.159 153. On December 24, 1999, Ms. Andrade, then Mayor of La Paz, filed documents before the Financial Investigation Unit concerning 3,372,816.17 bolivianos that had allegedly been deposited into a private account; that money should have been deposited into the account of the Office of Pensions.160 Mayor Andrade had allegedly already reported these facts to the Public Prosecutor’s Office and to the Judicial Police. Four persons had been implicated (Adrian Quaglio, Guillermo Quiroga F., José Luís Fernández and Juan Enrique Penny Bardelli).161 154. On January 20, 2000, the Head of Financial Analysis of the Financial Investigations Unit presented a report in which he recommended to the Public Prosecutor’s Office that, inter alia, the bank accounts of “SERAMEC S.R.L.” and of other persons be frozen.162 On February 2, 2000, the initial order was issued instituting preliminary proceedings against 18 persons; Ms. Andrade Salmón was not among them.163 On February 17, 2000, La Paz’ new Mayor, Juan del Granado Cossio, and the prosecutor for the case added more names to the list of suspects in the case, including Germán Monroy Chazarreta and Ms. Andrade Salmón, accusing them of dereliction of duty.164 155. On March 27, 2000, the Examining Judge said that he was not competent to take the case, because a number of the persons named as suspects were among the highest-ranking authorities of the Government of La Paz. The case, therefore, had to be sent up to the La Paz District Superior Court to be prosecuted in a “jurisdiction of privilege” (Caso Corte).165 Under Article 128 of Bolivia’s 1967 Constitution, jurisdictions of privilege were competent to “prosecute, either individually or collectively, mayors, municipal council members, sub-prefects, trial judges and prosecutors, agrarian judges and labor-court judges, as well 157 Annex 30. First Civil Chamber of the La Paz District Superior Court, Decision No. 005/2004 of January 29, 2004. Attachment to the State’s brief of March 29, 2011. 158 Annex 31. Constitutional Court Order 0004/2004-CDP of February 19, 2004, Justice writing for the court: Dr. Walter Raña Arana. Annex to the State’s brief of March 29, 2011. 159 Annex 34. Memorandum CITE DT 512/99 of October 8, 1999, signed by Dr. Gustavo Tejada Bravo, Head of the Administrative Area of the Legal Division of the Government of La Paz. Attachment to the State’s brief of June 14, 2004. 160 Annex 32. Confidential report UIF/AF/001/00 from the Financial Investigations Unit, La Paz, January 20, 2000. Attachment to the petitioners’ brief of June 20, 2002. 161 Annex 32. Confidential report UIF/AF/001/00 from the Financial Investigations Unit, La Paz, January 20, 2000. Attachment to the petitioners’ brief of June 20, 2002. 162 Annex 32. Confidential report UIF/AF/001/00 from the Financial Investigations Unit, La Paz, January 20, 2000. Attachment to the petitioners’ brief of June 20, 2002. 163 Annex 103. Supreme Order No. 266, Sucre 27/10/2011, Second Criminal Chamber. Attachment to the petitioner’s brief of February 14, 2012. 164 Annex 103. Supreme Order No. 266, Sucre 27/10/2011, Second Criminal Chamber. Attachment to the petitioner’s brief of February 14, 2012. 165 Annex 103. Supreme Order No. 266, Sucre 27/10/2011, Second Criminal Chamber. Attachment to the petitioner’s brief of February 14, 2012.