16. The petitioners pointed out that as a result of an inquiry conducted by the Bolivian Government Commission on April 4, 2003, the Office of the Attorney General of Bolivia filed a request on July 19, 2003, seeking an investigation into the complaints brought against the judges who initiated the criminal cases against Ms. Andrade. Three judges were charged with crimes associated with Ms. Andrade’s unlawful detention in 2000 (the crimes of deprivation of liberty, unconstitutional judgments and dereliction of duty). The petitioners stated that on June 3, 2004, the three judges were formally charged and January 4, 2005 was the date set for their trial to begin. 17. 1. The following is a summary of the petitioners’ main arguments in each of the criminal cases. Gader Case 18. According to the petitioners, this case involves a contract that former Mayor Germán Monroy awarded to the Gader Company to provide software to prepare an integrated tax collection system in the city of La Paz. The petitioners contend that the contract was not submitted to the City Council for approval before it was signed, as the law required. Therefore, when Ms. Andrade became mayor of La Paz, she sent the contract to the City Council to correct the omission. 19. The petitioners contend that on May 23, 2000, the incoming Mayor, Juan del Granado, filed a complaint against 8 persons, one of whom was Ms. Andrade. The petitioners point out that for this case, Mayor Juan del Granado arranged to have a Prosecutor assigned to the The Mayor of La Paz’s Office to conduct the investigation, in violation of the right to an independent investigation and to an independent determination of the charges. The petitioners stated that on May 8, 2000, the Prosecutor expanded the original indictment against Ms. Andrade Salmón and other persons. As examples of other irregularities, they point out that the prosecutor’s request seeking indictment was addressed to a specific judge (the Third Criminal Examining Judge, Alberto Costa Obregón), when Bolivian law dictates that the judges to preside over cases are to be selected randomly. The petitioners contend that despite Ms. Andrade’s challenges, the above decisions were not overturned until several months later, when the Constitutional Court ordered it. 20. The petitioners also point out that on June 21, 2000, the Third Criminal Examining Judge expanded the indictment against Ms. Andrade, based on a statement made by Mr. Germán Monroy Chazarreta (Ms. Andrade’s predecessor in the La Paz Mayor’s Office) and a report prepared by the Financial Investigation Unit (UIF) for another criminal case being heard in an altogether different court (the fraud case involving the siphoning of funds from the General Pension Fund), in which Ms. Andrade was not accused of anything. The petitioners point out that on three different occasions Ms. Andrade asked that the date and time for her statement during the investigative proceedings be set, which was finally held on August 3, 2000; the hearing on precautionary measures was held immediately thereafter, and Ms. Andrade’s pre-trial detention was ordered, disregarding the prerequisites that, under Bolivian law, must be met in order to allow pre-trial detention. 21. The petitioners assert that that same day, August 3, 2000, Ms. Andrade filed a petition of habeas corpus to challenge the order for pre-trial detention, a petition that the First Chamber of the District Superior Court denied. They point out that on August 31, 2000, the Constitutional Court heard Ms. Andrade’s appeal and granted her a writ of habeas corpus. The Constitutional Court held that Ms. Andrade’s pre-trial detention was unlawful and it therefore ordered that “alternatives to pre-trial detention be applied.” The petitioners observe that this judgment notwithstanding, Ms. Andrade was not released until February 10, 2001, because during the hearing on precautionary measures, the Third Criminal Examining Judge had set bail at US$250,000,000 (U.S. Dollars), an unreasonable amount that had made application of an alternative measure illusory. The petitioners contend that Ms. Andrade’s defense appealed the amount of the bail and, on October 2, 2000, the First Criminal Chamber decided to set bail at 80 thousand bolivianos and to sanction the Third Criminal Examining Judge with “one day of pay” for the errors he had committed in processing the appeal and that had declared a decision thereon. 22. The petitioners state that on October 23, 2000, the Constitutional Court of Bolivia issued a ruling on an appeal filed by another co-defendant and held that the proceedings were null and void until such