jurisdiction was established on January 10, 2001 (the last precautionary measure pending enforcement), the Ninth Criminal Examining Judge issued the order to release Ms. Andrade Salmón on January 22, 2001, though she continued to be detained until February 10, 2001, based on the Gader proceeding. 248. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that based on the facts proven and the parties’ arguments, as well as the judgments of the Superior District Court of November 10, 2000, and of the Constitutional Court of December 11, 2000, that in the instant case Ms. Andrade Salmón’s right to a simple and effective remedy to protect her fundamental rights in the terms of Article 7(6) of the American Convention was not violated, as Ms. Andrade had access to the remedy, and it was not proven that it was not effective. 249. The Commission further notes, based on the facts proven, that based on the complaint filed by the Vice Minister of Justice, on August 20, 2003, an investigation was initiated against the former Third Criminal Examining Judge and the Ninth Criminal Examining Judge for allegedly committing the crimes of deprivation of liberty, issuing resolutions contrary to the Constitution and the laws, failure to carry out duties, and disobedience of the rulings in habeas corpus and constitutional amparo proceedings, and that June 5, 2005 was set for the beginning of the trial, without the parties having provided information as to the status of those proceedings to date. 250. Finally, the Commission observes, based on the facts proven, that on January 29, 2004, the First Civil Chamber of the Superior District Court of La Paz issued a judgment on the characterization of damages in the writ of habeas corpus filed by Ms. Andrade Salmón against the Ninth Criminal Examining Judge (the Street Lamps case), ordering the judge in question to pay the sum of 2,079.50 bolivianos. Given that this has been a firm judgment since February 18, 2004, the Commission will take into account this monetary amount when making its recommendations. A.3 Article 7(5) of the American Convention in relation to Articles 21288 and 22289 of the same instrument 251. Article 7(5) of the American Convention recognizes the right to be tried within a reasonable term, which has a different scope depending on whether the person is deprived of liberty, and establishes that his or her liberty may be conditioned on guarantees that ensure his or her appearance at trial. 252. With respect to the relationship between Articles 7(5) and 8(1) of the Convention as regards the right to be tried in a reasonable time, the Inter-American Court has established: “Even when they refer to different issues, both rules have the same purpose: to limit, as much as possible, the abridgement of rights of an individual.”290 253. As regards the alternatives to deprivation of liberty, Principle 4 of the Principles and Best Practices on the Protection of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas, adopted by the IACHR by Resolution 01/08 during its 131st regular period of sessions, establishes: 288 Article 21(1) of the American Convention: “ Everyone has the right to the use and enjoyment of his property. The law may subordinate such use and enjoyment to the interest of society.” 289 Paragraphs 1-3 of Article 22 of the American Convention: 1. Every person law fully in the territory of a State Party has the right to move about in it, and to reside in it subject to the provisions of the law . 2. Every person has the right to leave any country freely, including his ow n. 3. The exercise of the foregoing rights may be restricted only pursuant to a law to the extent necessary in a democratic society to prevent crime or to protect national security, public safety, public order, public morals, public health, or the rights or freedoms of others. 290 I/A Court H.R., Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206, para. 119.