confessions made by defendants in the main case. The State reported that the Prosecutor had recommended that the case be reopened, and the preliminary investigation order be issued. The State asserted that on December 15, 2011, the judge in the case issued a decision in which he ordered the case against Ms. Lupe Andrade Salmón dismissed. 87. In the Street Lamps Case, the Government reported that on February 19, 2011 the Government of La Paz had requested that the case be reopened. The case was in fact reopened since cause had been established and thus the initial investigative order was issued and latter the final instruction order. The State indicated that the defendants appealed the final instruction and later, through an order issued by a judge, the provisional decision to dismiss the case against Ms. Andrade was revoked. The State reported that Ms. Andrade filed a request seeking disqualification of the First Criminal Trial Judge (Liquidador), so that at the present time measures are being taken to remit the case files to the Second Criminal Trial Court. 88. In the Gader and Street Lamps cases, the State asserted that Law No. 1178 and related provisions require that public servants pursue the cases instituted to their ultimate conclusion, and must exhaust every available remedy under domestic law. It pointed out that based on the fact that Ms. Andrade had likely committed crimes of corruption, the Government of La Paz and the Public Prosecutor’s Office still have a duty to pursue every avenue with the competent courts for a determination of whether or not she bears any criminal responsibility. Consequently, the State alleged that there is no unlawful or arbitrary prosecution against Ms. Andrade or any other person. It pointed out that under Article 221 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1972, which is the applicable law in the criminal cases involving Ms. Andrade, when the order to dismiss the case against the defendant is provisional in nature, the plaintiff or the prosecutor may reopen the case just once, within one year from the date on which the order became final. It indicated that if in this second proceeding the case against the accused is dismissed again, the plaintiff shall be liable for any damages and harm caused. The State maintained that because of this clause in the law, the Government of La Paz, as victim and plaintiff, has again brought the two cases (Street Lamps and Gader) against Mr. Andrade, having legally obtained the respective indictments from the prosecutors, which have come out in favor of reopening the cases. The State indicated that this action cannot be deemed a violation of the alleged victim’s rights. 89. In the Guaglio case, the State reported that La Paz’ Fourth Criminal Trial Judge (Liquidador) convicted Ms. Andrade and sentenced her to three years in prison (Decision No. 12/04 of January 28, 2004). On appeal, Ms. Andrade was acquitted, whereupon the City Council of La Paz filed a petition of cassation to challenge the verdict. The appeal went to the Second Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court on March 26, 2007. The State indicated that on October 27, 2011, the Second Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court found Ms. Lupe Andrade Salmón guilty of the crime of mismanagement of public resources and sentenced her to three years in the Obrajes public prison of La Paz; it also ordered her to pay the State’s costs and expenditures. It reported that as of late January 2012, the case was with the First Criminal Trial Court (Liquidador), and the ruling had become res judicata. The State indicated that Ms. Andrade had requested conditional suspension of her sentence, in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure. 90. The State reported that the precautionary measures ordered for Ms. Andrade in 2007 in the Mallasa case had been lifted; in the Mendieta case, the State reported that the case was time-barred. Finally, the State reported that Ms. Lupe Andrade is not involved in the ESIN case. 91. Also, in March 2012, the State reported that on February 7, 2012, the President of the Plurinational State of Bolivia enacted into law the text of the new Constitution, Article 123 of which provides that “the law is forward-looking and shall not have retroactive effects except […] in matters of corruption, to prosecute and punish the crimes that public servants commit against the interests of the State.” The State reasoned, therefore, that the Constitution of the State is fully applicable, even retroactively, to the cases brought against the petitioner, since in those cases, she is being prosecuted for acts of corruption she committed in her role as President of the City Council and as former Mayor of La Paz, acts that have caused financial harm to the Government of La Paz. It argued that Article 112 of the Constitution now in force provides that “crimes committed by public servants that strike at the State’s assets and inflict serious financial damage are not subject to the statute of limitations and the accused cannot claim immunity.” The