233. In relation to the Gader case, the Commission notes based on the facts proven that once the pre-trial detention order was issued on August 3, 2000, Ms. Andrade Salmón’s defense counsel filed a writ of habeas corpus against the Third Criminal Examining Judge of La Paz, which was declared out of order on August 5, 2000, by the First Chamber of the Superior Court for the District of La Paz; that ruling was appealed by Ms. Andrade. Finally, on August 31, 2000, the Constitutional Court, on ruling on the appeal, found that it was appropriate to apply, instead of detention, a bail in the amount of 100,000 bolivianos, in keeping with Article 240 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.282 234. The Commission also notes that according to the facts proven on August 8, 2000, Ms. Andrade Salmón filed a motion for reconsideration against the pre-trial detention order with a view to the imposition of alternative measures, which was rejected on August 18, 2000, which was appealed by Ms. Andrade on August 26, 2000. 235. It appears in the facts proven that on September 6, 2000, the Third Criminal Examining Judge held a public hearing for the imposition of substitute measures, to carry out the August 31, 2000 ruling of the Constitutional Court which, pursuant to Article 18 of the Constitution in force at the time was selfexecuting. During the hearing, the Third Criminal Examining Judge ruled, contrary to what was ordered by the Constitutional Court, on the following precautionary measures: (1) the regular appearance by Ms. Andrade at the court on Mondays at 9:00 a.m. to sign the corresponding book; and (2) the bail of US$100,000.00 or its equivalent in national currency, which should be deposited with the court to make effective the benefit of liberty. 236. The Commission notes, as appears from the facts proven, that after Ms. Andrade appealed the aforementioned decision, on October 2, 2000, the First Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice set a bail of 80,000 bolivianos instead of US$100,000. Subsequently, on October 4, 2000, Ms. Andrade requested that the monetary bail be replaced by a vehicle, which was accepted in a hearing of October 10, 2000, and on October 11, 2000, requested that an order be issued (“faccione Orden instruída”) for the vehicle that she had offered as a guarantee and that had been accepted could be registered with the Departmental Bureau of Transit of the District of Santa Cruz, and that the corresponding release order be issued once the aforementioned bureaucratic steps had been taken. 237. The Commission also observes that in late October 2000 the Gader proceeding was annulled until the case was randomly assigned, that is, prior to the issuing of the initial order to investigate and the order of pre-trial detention, based on a judgment of the Constitutional Court in the resolution of a motion filed by another co-accused in that proceeding. As a result, the Gader proceeding, after the process of random assignment, went to the Seventh Criminal Examining Court, which refused to stop the pre-trial detention of 282 Article 240.- (Measures to Substitute for Pre-trial detention). When pre-trial detention is not in order and there is a danger of flight or obstruction of the procedure, the judge or court, by reasoned resolution, may order the application of one or more of the following substitute measures: 1. Household arrest, either in the accused’s domicile or in another person’s, with no surveillance or with the surveillance ordered by the court. If the accused cannot provide for his or her economic needs or those of his or her family or is indigent, the judge may authorize his or her absence during the workday; 2. Supervised release, where the accused must appear regularly before the judge, court or other designated authority; 3. Prohibiting the person concerned from leaving the country, the place in which he or she resides or the area prescribed by the judge or the court, without the court’s or judge’s authorization, and conveying said order to the competent authorities; 4. Designating certain places as off-limits for the accused; 5. Prohibiting the accused from speaking with certain persons, provided the accused’s right of defense is not adversely affected; and 6. Release on one’s personal recognizance or bail. The bail may be posted by the accused or by another person by depositing money, securities, collateral or a mortgage. On ruling on the application of the measures listed above, the judge or court shall determine the conditions and rules that the accused must abide by, with the express warning that the commission of a new offense or failure to comply with the rules imposed shall lead to the revocation of the measure and its replacement by another more serious one, including pre-trial detention if well-founded; the victim may address the court.