to require bail is revoked; 2. the accused is acquitted or the case against the accused is dismissed or the proceedings are archived, by firm resolution; and, 3. The accused subjects to enforcement of the penalty, or it should not be enforced. 258. Additionally, Article 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure establishes that personal precautionary measures are revocable or modifiable, even sua sponte. 259. In the instant case, the petitioners allege that Ms. Andrade Salmón, as a result of being put on trial, has not been able to open a bank account, write a check, or obtain a loan, and has been subjected to restrictions and damages for more than 10 years. They indicate that the State, on freezing her bank accounts and forcing to pay unreasonable bails and creating conditions that turned her into a person not employable for life, on the basis of criminal proceedings that have violated due process, has violated Article 21 of the American Convention. 260. The State, for its part, indicated that the petitioners have presented vague allegations that do not state facts supporting their arguments, nor do they explain what amounts or bank accounts were frozen, as well as the times during which she was impeded from access to create a bank account in her own name. It argued that precautionary measures, personal or real, are provisional decisions that are not final, thus they can be reviewed, modified, or revoked at the request of the parties, as established in Article 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, as the alleged victim recognized on filing the respective appeals with a view to proceeding to the substitution and/or modification of the bail imposed in the specific case. The State indicated that the Constitutional Court of Bolivia has indicated in its constitutional precedents that: “while Article 241 of Law No. 1970 provides that the sole purpose of bail is to ensure that a defendant will meet the obligations imposed, and must be assessed by reference to the defendant’s assets, it is also true that a defendant must present information and evidence to enable the judge or court to get a clear and real picture of his or her assets at the time bail is set, based on those assets. The court cannot be expected to assume, as a general rule, that a defendant is a person of either modest or fair economic means or circumstances.”291 261. The State alleged that it has not violated Article 21 of the Convention to the detriment of Ms. Andrade since she has always been able to be the principal owner of property, both real and movable, subject to registration and in keeping with the limitations established in Bolivian law. The State argued that the provisional measure of putting up an economic and real bail, imposed on Ms. Andrade in processing the criminal proceedings brought against her, cannot be considered unreasonable and incompatible with the spirit of Article 21 of the American Convention, since the economic or real bail provided for in the Code of Criminal Procedure is not a penalty that depends on the greater or lesser degree of criminal liability of the accused, but rather is nature and amount are determined in light of the elements established in Articles 240, 241, and 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which are related to the purposes of the proceeding. In this regard, the State indicated that one of the factors duly shown in the domestic courts refers to “the procedural risks,” i.e. the danger of flight and obstruction of the investigation and prosecution of the criminal proceeding, thus the precautionary measures of bail and being required not to leave the court’s jurisdiction are enshrined in the Bolivian legislation along the lines indicated by the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.292 262. The Commission notes, in keeping with the facts proven, that in the six proceedings initiated against Ms. Andrade, precautionary measures of bail and being compelled not to leave the court’s jurisdiction were imposed on her at some point and, in addition or in their place, required the presentation of guarantors: - In the Gader case, on February 6, 2001, the Seventh Criminal Examining Court imposed the following precautionary measures on Ms. Andrade Salmón (which were carried out on February 9, 2001): (1) the obligation to appear once a week at the Court; (2) the prohibition on leaving the court’s jurisdiction; and (3) 291 The State refers to the constitutional precedent found in Constitutional Judgment No. 162/2002-R of February 27, 2002. 292 The State cites the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the Case of Neumeister v. Austria of June 27, 1968, para. 14 and in the Case of Iwañczuck v. Poland, para. 66.