alleged victim had committed the crimes with which she was accused (no probable cause). They point out that the plaintiff appealed this decision. However, because the appeal has not yet been heard, the case is still open. The petitioners go on to say that on September 16, 2004, they filed a motion to have the case against Mrs. Andrade declared time-barred. The judge denied their motion on April 19, 2005, on the grounds that the delay in the proceedings was caused by the defendants’ conduct. The petitioners argue that the failure to meet the legally established deadlines is the fault of the judicial system, which has suspended 36 hearings. None of those suspensions, they contend, is the fault of Mrs. Andrade.7 6. The Esin Case 29. The petitioners state that this case concerns a contract that former Mayor Gaby Candia signed and former Mayor German Monroy extended. They explain that given the litigation pending with the Comprehensive Urban Sanitation Services Company, the City Council ordered the then mayor to terminate the contract; the contract was nonetheless extended in violation of the legal provisions then in force. The petitioners underscore the fact that Mrs. Andrade had no hand in either the contract or its extension. 30. The petitioners report that the case was assigned to the First Criminal Investigating Court which, by a decision dated May 10, 2002, charged the alleged victim with the crimes of “dereliction of duty” and “contracts contrary to the interests of the State.” According to the information provided by the petitioners, the preliminaries in this case have been underway for four years. 31. As for the admissibility requirements, the petitioners are asking the Commission to apply the exceptions established in subparagraphs a) and c) of Article 46(2) of the American Convention. They argue that the absence of due process is self evident, as is the unwarranted delay in the judicial proceedings. Their contention is that Bolivian law establishes final deadlines for concluding criminal cases; in Mrs. Andrade’s case, those deadlines were systematically violated, even though all the conditions specified by law had been satisfied. They argue that the political interests of certain judges had biased the preliminary proceedings, resulting in unjustified arrest warrants and alternatives to incarceration that were impossible to comply with. 32. Finally, the petitioners observe that on August 20, 2003, at the request of the Vice Minister of Justice, an investigation was launched into Messrs. Constancio Alarcón (Seventh Criminal Examining Judge), Rolando Sarmiento (Ninth Criminal Examining Judge), William Dávila and Alberto Costa Obregón (Third Criminal Examining Judge). The petitioners state that on November 27, 2003, the Public Prosecutor’s Office brought formal charges against the respective judges for the crimes of deprivation of freedom, rulings that were in violation of the Constitution and the law, and contempt of decisions delivered in habeas corpus proceedings. They add that on June 7, 2004, the Public Prosecutor’s Office asked that oral proceedings be instituted in the La Paz District Trial Court. Judging from the information available, the trial is still underway. B. The State 33. The State recounts the reasons why the six criminal cases were brought against Mrs. Andrade. 34. As for the Gader case, the State asserts that as La Paz’ Mayor, Mrs. Andrade made a number of payments disregarding the City Council’s instructions ordering that the contract and payments under the contract be suspended. As for the Guaglio case (Ham v. Monroy), the State asserts that, in her capacity as Mayor of La Paz, the alleged victim made payments to private accounts to the detriment of the public coffers and despite the fact that the egregious errors in processing the vague paperwork were obvious. The petitioners observe that according to the report submitted by the Office of the Clerk of the Second District Criminal Court, hearings have been suspended in 8 cases because of the absence of the prosecutor; 4 because of the absence of the judge; 4 because of recusals and disqualifications; 15 because of mistakes in notification or procedures, and 5 because of the absence of the civil party. 7 6