held that the protracted duration of her case was due to the delaying tactics that the defendants had employed, who “on several occasions requested that hearings for their preliminary statements be postponed”; that one of the defendants had not yet given a preliminary statement, and that every one of the defendants was filing motions, which then had to be decided before the proceedings on the main case could go forward.209 178. On August 15, 2007, the Criminal Examining Judge (Liquidador) issued Resolution No. 43/07 in which he decided to lift the order confining Ms. Andrade to the jurisdiction of the court, a precautionary measure ordered in her case. The plaintiffs appealed this decision on August 23, 2007.210 Also on August 23, 2007, the court ordered provisional dismissal of the case against Ms. Andrade Salmón and other persons on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence of culpability. It also issued the order binding Juan del Granado Cossio over for trial.211 179. In February 2012, the petitioners indicated that the case was closed; in March 2012, the State indicated that the case had been time-barred. 6. Mallasa Case. 180. As background to the case, the record shows that Mallasa National Park was created by Supreme Decree No. 04309 of February 6, 1956, when the Mallasa Farm Workers Union ceded a piece of land to create a park in the area; thereafter, a commune representing 70 farmers, gifted 180 hectares in perpetuity, for creation of the great Mallasa National Park.212 On February 18, 1972, Supreme Decree No. 10125 ordered that Mallasa National Park be conveyed to the City of La Paz, with all its uses, easements, and waters, to be used as a green area of the city, for recreation area and for sports facilities.213 In 1997, then Mayor Gaby Candia de Mercado issued Municipal Resolution No. 563/97 approving the voluntary demarcation arrangement between the Government of La Paz and the Mallasa Farm Workers Union.214 181. During the administration of Mayor Germán Monroy Chazarreta, Resolution No. 418/98 was issued in which the Mallasa Farm Workers Union was given a number of hectares inside the park for urban development; the planimetrics for the area were changed several times, and had the effect of reducing the surface area of Mallasa Park.215 182. On May 14, 1999, the Chairman of the Aranjuez Board’s Neighborhood Association brought a complaint against the President of the Mallasa Farm Workers Union, claiming that the Union had taken their land.216 On June 11, 1999, the City Council of La Paz presented inculpatory evidence, thereby formalizing the 209 Annex 83. Resolution No. 422/06, First Criminal Chamber of the La Paz Superior Court, June 17, 2006. Attachment to the State’s brief of March 29, 2011. 210 Annex 100. Appeal filed on August 23, 2007, against Decision No. 43/07 of August 15, 2007, sent by the Criminal Examining Judge (Liquidador). Attachment to the petitioners’ communication of February 14, 2012. 211 Annex 99. Decision 45/2007 of the Capital’s Criminal Examining Court of the District Superior Court, Final Instruction dated August 23, 2007. Attachment to the petitioners’ communication of February 14, 2012. 212 Annex 84. Decision No. 166/03 of the La Paz Fifth Criminal Examining Judge (Liquidador), Final Instruction of September 8, 2003. Attachment to the brief of March 26, 2006. 213 Annex 84. Decision No. 166/03 of the La Paz Fifth Criminal Examining Judge (Liquidador), Final Instruction of September 8, 2003. Attachment to the brief of March 26, 2006. 214 Annex 84. Decision No. 166/03 of the La Paz Fifth Criminal Examining Judge (Liquidador), Final Instruction of September 8, 2003. Attachment to the brief of March 26, 2006. 215 Annex 84. Decision No. 166/03 of the La Paz Fifth Criminal Examining Judge (Liquidador), Final Instruction of September 8, 2003. Attachment to the brief of March 26, 2006.. 216 Annex 85. Decision No. 31/2005 of April 19, 2005, First Criminal Trial Court Judge (Liquidador). Attachment to the petitioners’ brief of March 26, 2006.