publicly complained of corruption cases and that when she left office, she was implicated in six criminal cases, among them the cases she had denounced. 14. In general terms, the petitioners allege that a number of violations of due process have occurred in the prosecution of those cases, specifically the right to be prosecuted within a reasonable period, the presumption of innocence, the right of defense and the right to be tried by an independent and impartial court. As for the principle of presumption of innocence, the petitioners point out that charges made by the prosecutors and the examining judges were baseless, as no proof or evidence was offered to show Mrs. Andrade’s involvement in criminal acts. They also argue that the alleged victim is still laboring under bail and the order not to leave the court’s jurisdiction, which were the alternatives to incarceration ordered by the court and which have exacted a toll on her assets and her freedom of movement. What follows is a summary of the main arguments in each of the criminal cases. 1. The Gader Case 15. 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. When Mrs. Andrade became mayor of La Paz, she sent the contract to the City Council to correct the omission. They add that the foregoing notwithstanding, the District Attorney ordered that criminal proceedings be instituted against Mrs. Andrade and the criminal case was brought on June 21, 2000. 16. The petitioners provide further details: on August 3, 2000, the order for the alleged victim’s preventive detention was issued, ignoring the requirements under Bolivian law, which are that there must be evidence suggesting guilt, risk of flight and obstruction of the investigation. They contend that as a result of this decision, Mrs. Andrade was taken to the La Paz Women’s Prison, where she was placed in the prison’s general population until February 10, 2001, the date on which she was released upon issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioners indicate that this decision ordered alternatives to incarceration, namely bail, an order confining her to the court’s jurisdiction, bond and supervised release. 17. The petitioners observe that the case is ongoing and thus far no indictment has been handed down. The attachments that the petitioners provide show that between January 26, 2004 and March 2006, the case was docketed in 19 different courts, in some cases as a consequence of recusals, disqualifications and internal remittances between the judges who deemed that they did not have jurisdiction.3 The petitioners argue that the authorities are to blame for an unreasonable delay that has violated the rights of the alleged victim, who is still coping with the alternative court-ordered measures. 18. Finally, the petitioners observe that on August 20 and September 16, 2004, they filed a motion to have the criminal case time-barred because it had exceeded the maximum period that 3 See in this regard: Note No. 20/04 of January 26, 2004, issued by the Sixth District Criminal Court; Recusal dated January 27, 2004, and the explanation dated February 3, 2004, from the Eighth District Receiving Court for Preliminary Criminal Proceedings; order authorizing the recusal, dated February 17, 2004, and the memorandum remitting the case files, dated February 18, 2004, from the First Criminal Examining Judge; Memorandum No. 56/2004, dated March 9, 2004, from the Second Receiving Court for Preliminary Criminal Proceedings; Recusal dated March 11, 2004, and remittance memoranda dated March 18 and April 14, 2004, from the Fourth Receiving Court for Preliminary Criminal Proceedings; order authorizing the recusal, dated April 23, 2004, and remittance memorandum dated April 27, 2004, from the Fifth Criminal Examining Judge; recusal dated April 28, 2004, and remittance memorandum dated April 29, 2004, from the Seventh Receiving Court for Preliminary Criminal Proceedings; recusal dated April 30, 2004, and remittance memorandum dated May 10, 2004, from the Ninth Criminal Examining Court; declaration of May 23, 2004, and remittance memorandum of June 15, 2004, from the President of the Second Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court; Report from the Clerk of the Eighth La Paz District Receiving Court for Preliminary Criminal Proceedings, dated June 18, 2004; declaration dated December 6, 2004, confirming the declaration of February 3, 2004 and remittance memorandum dated December 15, 2004; request dated December 2, 2005, from the Prosecutor with subject matter jurisdiction from the La Paz District Attorney’s Office; remittance memorandum of December 6, 2005, from the Ninth Criminal Examining Court; declaration of January 11, 2006, and remittance memorandum dated January 30, 2006, from the La Paz Criminal Examining Magistrate; declaration of January 31, 2006, from the Fifth Criminal Examining Magistrate of El Alto; remittance memorandum of March 16, 2006, from the Fourth Criminal Examining Court of El Alto. 3