time as the case was randomly assigned, as neither the principal case nor the hearing concerning the precautionary measures had been randomly assigned. Based on that Court ruling, on October 26 and November 3, 2000, Ms. Andrade’s defense asked the Third Criminal Examining Judge to issue the warrant for Ms. Andrade’s release by virtue of the fact that the proceedings had been declared null and void. Her defense counsel never received any reply to her brief. 23. The petitioners state that on November 7, 2000, the Seventh Criminal Examining Judge issued the order to investigate 12 persons, one of whom was Ms. Andrade. In addition to the crimes of fraud and criminal conspiracy, she was suspected of mismanagement of public resources. The petitioners state that Ms. Andrade made her preliminary statement on November 14, 2000, and once it was finalized, the Seventh Judge held the hearing on precautionary measures, where the prosecutor requested ratification of the precautionary measure prescribed by the Constitutional Court and the District Superior Court, which was bail of 80,000 bolivianos. The petitioners report that on November 15, 2000, Ms. Andrade’s defense counsel appealed the order of pre-trial detention and on December 1, 2000, the Second Criminal Chamber set bail at 3,000,000 bolivianos. Ms. Andrade therefore had to remain in custody, as she did not have the funds to post bail. 24. The petitioners stated that on December 2, 2000, Ms. Andrade’s defense counsel filed a second petition of habeas corpus, which the First Civil Chamber denied. On December 7, 2000, the First Civil Chamber held a habeas corpus hearing and declared the petition inadmissible, despite the fact that the prosecutor had come out in favor of the petition. The petitioners stated that on December 14, 2000, Ms. Andrade’s defense counsel presented arguments before the Constitutional Court and that on January 16, 2001 the Constitutional Court upheld the petition and granted a writ of habeas corpus. The Court wrote that based on the statements of Ms. Andrade’s assets and net worth, presented by her defense counsel, Ms. Andrade would not have been able to post bail. The Court, therefore, ordered that alternatives be ordered that were not impossible for the defendant to meet. The petitioners point out that on January 22, 2001, Ms. Andrade’s defense counsel asked the Seventh Civil Examining Judge to set the date for the hearing to determine the alternative precautionary measures. That hearing was set for February 6, 2001, where the court set bail at 40,000 bolivianos. On February 10, 2001, Ms. Andrade was released. 25. The petitioners maintain that no further hearings were held until June 2002 and that the process remained in the investigative phase. They also note that before the case was opened and the hearing held, all proceedings leading up to the judge’s final instruction in the preliminary proceedings were declared null and void because of the procedural errors; that final instruction in the preliminary phase had to be issued again. The petitioners report that on August 19 and September 16, 2004, they filed a motion to have the criminal case time-barred because the maximum period that a case of that nature is allowed to continue under the Code of Criminal Procedure had been exceeded. They add that these motions were denied on the grounds that the alleged victim had caused the delay in the proceedings. 26. In mid 2009, the petitioners reported that Ms. Andrade was cleared on January 18, 2007, but that the The Mayor of La Paz’s Office had appealed the verdict, with the result that the precautionary measures remained in force. In October 2010, the petitioners reported that although the provisional stay had been confirmed by the District Superior Court, under the Code of Criminal Procedure the case could be reopened if new evidence came to light within the first year following notification of the accused’ exoneration. They pointed out that to get the case reopened, the La Paz Mayor’s Office had introduced new evidence in the form of old statements made by persons accused in the case. 27. In September 2011, the petitioners reported that the Gader case had been reopened even though there was no new evidence; in February 2012, they reported that Ms. Andrade “had again be acquitted” and that they were in a waiting period, as the Mayor’s Office could still appeal the verdict. 2. Guaglio or Pensions Case (Ham versus Monroy) 28. The petitioners state that this case is related to the Gader case and that proceedings in the two cases were constantly crossing paths. The petitioners point out that on December 14, 1999, a complaint