5. The State, for its part, argued that the facts under review in the present case have to do with public functions that Ms. Andrade Salmón performed as President of the City Council of La Paz and as Mayor in the executive branch of the Government of La Paz, between January 1996 and June 1999. The State’s contention was that Ms. Andrade was prosecuted with other people for the alleged commission of criminal acts relating to the alleged mismanagement of the Bolivian people’s funds. The State asserted that by availing herself of the remedies under Bolivian domestic law, such as the petition of habeas corpus, Ms. Andrade’s right to physical freedom had been protected; hence, the State did not violate articles 7 and 25 of the American Convention. The State also alleged that thanks to the good offices of the Inter-American Commission acting under Article 48(f) of the American Convention, Ms. Andrade received compensation for any damages and harm that may have been caused during the habeas corpus proceedings, as the State went through with the negotiations to arrange compensatory damages for Ms. Andrade Salmón. The State alleged that the judicial guarantees protected under Article 8(1) of the American Convention have in no way been violated, since the 6 criminal cases were prosecuted in connection with different facts; they were complex cases because of the number of defendants (21), and because the defendants –including the alleged victimengaged in delaying tactics. 6. As for the alleged violation of Article 21, the State argued that bail is mainly intended to guarantee that the accused will not attempt to elude justice; hence, this allegation does not constitute a factual basis for inferring posible violations of the right to private property. In the case of the alleged violation of Article 22 of the American Convention, the State observed that a court order not to leave a jurisdiction is a means to protect the criminal process and has nothing to do with the guilt of the accused or with the imposition of a criminal sentence. It also argued that the precautionary measure involving an order not to leave the court’s jurisdiction can be lifted if the interested party shows that said course of action is essential in order to protect other basic rights, such as the right to work. Finally, the State argued that there are no grounds to allege a violation of the right to freedom of movement and residence, nor can a failure to provide suitable and effective remedies to exercise this right be shown. 7. After examining the positions of the parties, the Inter-American Commission concludes that in the Gader and Street Lamps cases, the State of Bolivia is responsible for violation of Ms. María Nina Lupe del Rosario Andrade Salmón’s right to personal liberty, protected under articles 7(1), 7(2) and 7(3) of the American Convention, read in conjunction with articles 8(2) and 1(1) thereof; and violation of the right to a simple and effective remedy for the protection of her basic rights, recognized in articles 7(6) and 25 of the American Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, in the Gader criminal case. The Commission also concludes that in the Gader and Street Lamps cases the State of Bolivia violated Article 7(5) of the American Convention, read in conjunction with articles 1(1), 21 and 22 thereof, to the detriment of Ms. María Nina Lupe del Rosario Andrade Salmón. It also concludes that in the Gader, Street Lamps and Guaglio cases, the State violated the right to a hearing within a reason period of time, protected under articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Ms. María Nina Lupe del Rosario Andrade Salmón. The Commission also concludes that it has no elements to rule on a possible violation of article 2 of the Inter-American Convention. II. PROCESSING WITH THE COMMISSION 8. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights received the original petition on April 2, 2001. The processing of the petition, from its receipt to the decision on its admissibility, is described in detail in the admissibility report2 issued on March 19, 2009. 9. On March 31, 2009, the Commission notified the parties of Admissibility Report No. 11/09, informed them that the petition had been classified as case No. 12,693 and, pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, set a two-month deadline for the petitioners to present any additional observations on the merits. Also, in accordance with Article 48(1)(f) of the American Convention, the 2 IACHR, Report No. 11/09 of March 19, 2009, paragraphs 5-12.