47. In September 2006, the petitioners reported that the case was in the Court for Criminal Proceedings (Liquidador), in “remand on appeal”. They pointed out that the request to have this case declared time barred was denied. 48. In mid 2009, the petitioners indicated that the case against Ms. Andrade had been dismissed and that the precautionary measures had been lifted. In February 2012, they indicated that the case was closed. 5. Mallasa Case 49. The petitioners state that this is a case in which a former La Paz Mayor and other officials allegedly sold land belonging to the Mallasa National Park. They point out that on January 26, 2001, the The Mayor of La Paz filed a complaint against Ms. Andrade alleging her failure to bring legal action and consequent dereliction of duty. The petitioners report that, as alternatives to incarceration, the judge hearing the case ordered that Ms. Andrade put up bond, that she submit to a supervised release arrangement requiring weekly check-ins, and that she be confined to the jurisdiction of the court. The petitioners state that although the original charges against Ms. Andrade were filed on January 29, 2001, as of June 2002 no hearing had been held. 50. According to the petitioners, on September 8, 2003, the Fifth Criminal Examining Court (Liquidador) issued the final examining decision and ordered the provisional dismissal of the case against Ms. Andrade on the grounds that there was no cause to suspect that the alleged victim had committed the crimes with which she was accused (no probable cause). They point out that the plaintiff –the Government of La Paz- appealed this decision. The petitioners go on to say that on September 16, 2004, they filed a motion to have the case against Ms. Andrade declared time-barred. The judge denied their motion on April 19, 2005, on the grounds that the delay in the proceedings was caused by the defendants’ conduct. The petitioners argue that in this case the failure to meet the legally established deadlines is the fault of the judicial system, which suspended 36 hearings. They contend that Ms. Andrade was not responsible of these suspensions. 51. In mid 2009, the petitioners reported that the case against Ms. Andrade had been dismissed but that the La Paz Mayor’s Office had appealed the decision to dismiss the case against her. The petitioners indicated that the precautionary measures had been lifted. In February 2012, the petitioners reported that the case had not been reopened and was therefore closed, and could not be reopened. 6. Esin Case 52. The petitioners state that this case concerns a contract that former Mayor Gaby Candia signed and former Mayor German Monroy extended. They explain that given the litigation pending with the Comprehensive Urban Sanitation Services Company, the City Council had ordered the then mayor to terminate the contract; the contract was nonetheless extended in violation of the legal provisions then in force. The petitioners underscore the fact that Ms. Andrade had no hand in either the contract or its extension, as she was Mayor Monroy’s successor. 53. The petitioners state that via a brief dated February 16, 2001, the Government of La Paz, in the person of Mayor Juan del Granado Cossio, brought a complaint against Germán Monroy Chazarreta and others based on the Special Internal Auditing Report dated June 27, 2000, concerning the decision to enter into a contract with the ESIN urban sanitation services company, as evidence had been uncovered suggesting criminal liability. The petitioners state that on May 10, 2002, the judge who was assigned the case ordered a criminal investigation of Germán Monroy Chazarretta and other persons, one of whom was Ms. Andrade. In February 2012, the petitioners reported that the case had been closed, since the charge against Ms. Andrade was dismissed. Allegations related to the 6 criminal cases