54. In connection with all the above cases, in September 2006 the petitioners reported that from a procedural point of view, the cases were at a standstill, except for case known as Guaglio or the pensions’ case. They indicated that as of that date, no examination of the cases had been done, nor had any decision on the merits been delivered; the only action on these cases had to do with secondary petitions, permits and other issues like time-barring and precautionary measures. 55. In their additional observations on the merits, the petitioners alleged that by ignoring the prerequisites for pre-trial detention described in the Code of Criminal Procedure and by ignoring the judgments of the Constitutional Court that held that Ms. Andrade’s incarceration was unlawful, the State of Bolivia has violated articles 7(2), 7(3) and 7(6) of the American Convention. 56. The petitioners also maintained that by bringing 6 cases against Ms. Andrade, despite official reports exonerating the alleged victim of any blame, by directing cases to specific judges in violation of the Bolivian law that requires random selection of courts and judges, by keeping these cases in the investigative phase for years when Bolivian law requires that the investigative phase shall not last more than 20 days, by denying the motions to have the cases time-barred in accordance with the laws in force, the Bolivian State violated Ms. Andrade’s rights to due process and to a presumption of innocence, rights guaranteed under articles 8(1) and 8(2) of the American Convention. The petitioners also maintain that the above cases are not so complex as to justify the time that has passed since the cases were first brought; they therefore allege that the Bolivian State has violated Article 8(1) of the American Convention. 57. As for the alleged violations of Article 21 of the American Convention, the petitioners maintain that by freezing Ms. Andrade’s bank accounts, forcing her to post unreasonable bail, and causing the circumstances that made her unemployable for life because of criminal cases in which her rights to due process were violated, the Bolivian State has violated the right recognized in Article 21 of the Convention, especially inasmuch as the precautionary measures ordered in the Gader and Street Lamps cases are still in effect to this day. 58. The petitioners also allege that the State has violated articles 22(1), 22(2) and 22(3) of the American Convention by denying Ms. Andrade a passport, by having ordered her confinement to the court’s jurisdiction and by prohibiting her from traveling beyond La Paz, even though she has not been convicted of or sentenced to anything. They maintain that the alleged violations of Article 22 of the Convention are a consequence of the violations of due process of law. The petitioners argue that for more than nine years, and in direct violation of Bolivia’s laws on the imposition of precautionary measures in criminal cases, Ms. Andrade has been unable to move about freely within Bolivia or to leave Bolivian territory at will, in direct violation of Article 22 of the American Convention. 59. As for the alleged violation of Article 25 of the Convention, the petitioners contend that by ignoring the rulings of the Constitutional Court that declared her incarceration to be unlawful, the State violated Article 25 of the American Convention, since the remedies afforded by the Bolivian State have been ineffective. 60. The petitioners state that on December 22, 2004 they reached a Friendly Settlement with the State, under the procedure provided for in Article 48 of the American Convention, and that while partial compensation was paid under the terms of the agreement, the Bolivian Government refused to act on the other terms of the agreement. B. The State 61. The State asserts that on January 23, 1997, the Plurinational State of Bolivia ratified the Inter-American Convention against Corruption, and within the scope of this Convention the Bolivian State has established that corruption undermines the legitimacy of public institutions and strikes at society, moral order and justice, as well as at the comprehensive development of peoples. The State contends that the ratification of the Inter-American Convention against Corruption has informed its commitment to fight corruption by strengthening the institutions of democratic government, avoiding inequities in the economy,