years this case remained in the investigative phase and that it was not until June 6, 2002 that the judge issued the order binding Ms. Andrade over for trial. 33. In mid 2009, the petitioners reported that the case against Ms. Andrade had been dismissed and that the verdict had been upheld by the higher court and was under the Supreme Court’s review. They stated that the verdict had been appealed and that the precautionary measures had been lifted. In September 2011, the petitioners stated that the case had not yet gone to the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court for a decision. They pointed out that since no chamber or judge had as yet been assigned to the case, the defendant languished in a kind of procedural limbo because the defense was unable to file any constitutional actions as there was no authority to whom such an appeal could be directed . 34. In February 2012, the petitioners reported that the Supreme Court had overturned the ruling and had convicted Ms. Andrade for dereliction of duty and sentenced her to three years. She is awaiting notification of the decision. 3. Street Lamps Case 35. As background to the case, the petitioners point out that on May 13, 1998, the City Council of La Paz approved a trip by then Mayor Germán Monroy to the People’s Republic of China. They note that during Mayor Monroy’s visit to China, he signed a contract with the Xuzhou company, without the City Council’s prior knowledge or approval. Under the contract, the Chinese firm was given three projects, one of which was a project for the La Paz city street lighting. The petitioners state that on August 3, 1998, the City Council approved the agreement and the contract the mayor had signed, which was for US$7,372,000.00. The petitioners claim that Mayor Monroy subsequently signed an addendum to the contract, again without the City Council’s knowledge. That addendum stipulated that the costs of purchasing the materials and spare parts had to be increased. They point out that on October 19, 1998, Mayor Monroy proceeded to pay Xuzhou’s representative the sum of US$5,595,520.00. The City Council had no knowledge of and had not approved that payment. 36. The petitioners point out that on July 5, 1999, then Mayor Andrade asked the Director of Internal Auditing of the Government of La Paz to do a special audit of the deal to purchase street lamps from China and the advance payment, to determine who was responsible and then pursue any legal action that the audit might dictate. 37. The petitioners state that at the time, the National Parliament decided to investigate the cases from former Mayor Monroy’s term and that the Public Participation Commission of the Chamber of Deputies requested that legal action be brought by issuing a bill of indictment summoning 10 persons to appear before the Chamber, one of whom was Ms. Andrade. They state that the Full Chamber of the District Superior Court conducted preliminary proceedings against Ms. Andrade and nine other persons. They maintain that Ms. Andrade was charged with the crimes of influence peddling, decisions that contravene the Constitution and the law, and dereliction of duty. 38. The petitioners state that Ms. Andrade was summoned on October 17, 2000, to make her preliminary statement and that during those preliminary proceedings, the Judge did not allow Ms. Andrade’s attorneys to be present to defend her and the court even threatened to throw them out of the courtroom. They note that in the hearing on precautionary measures, the Judge denied the application for alternatives to pre-trial detention, even though the sentence that the crimes charged carried allowed for alternatives to pretrial detention. The petitioners state that Ms. Andrade appealed the order for her pre-trial detention and filed a petition of habeas corpus. The petitioners point out that the First Civil Chamber dismissed the petition of habeas corpus as inadmissible on the grounds that an appeal was pending, even though the prosecutor was in favor of granting the petition. 39. The petitioners indicate that the Second Criminal Chamber agreed to hear the appeal, and on November 10, 2000, revoked the order of pre-trial detention and set bail at 100,000 bolivianos. On November 27, 2000, Ms. Andrade’s defense counsel posted bail and requested that the warrant for the alleged victim’s