35. In the Street Lamps case, the State asserts that according to the report of the Committee of Public Participation and Decentralization, serious evidence was uncovered pointing to the criminal culpability of Mrs. Andrade in the purchase of some street lamps for the city of La Paz. On the subject of the Mendieta case (Villa Ayacucho) the State asserts that the alleged victim, while serving as Chair of the City Council, issued Municipal Ordinance No. 151/98 in which she failed to observe the mandates established in Supreme Order No. 231 of October 21, 1997. It adds that she was charged with the crime of contempt of decisions in proceedings ofhabeas corpus and constitutional amparo and of adopting decisions that were contrary to the Constitution and the law. 36. With reference to the Mallasa case, the State asserts that as Chair of the La Paz City Council, Mrs. Andrade, although aware of the criminal business involving the Mallasa national park, never ordered the respective inspection and never took the appropriate measures against those responsible. As for the Esin case, the State asserts that the alleged victim failed to conduct responsible oversight of the municipal executive. As a result, the State contends, both in the various audit reports and the reports of the comptroller, significant irregularities were found with respect to the signature on and extension of certain contracts. 37. As for the arguments of law, the State alleges that the six criminal cases instituted against the alleged victim were supported by serious evidence of criminal responsibility and that in each case, the right to presumption of innocence was respected. The State acknowledges the delay in processing the criminal cases, but argues that the delay was attributable to Mrs. Andrade and to the manner in which she has exercised her right of self-defense and her right to be represented by counsel. The State makes specific reference to the series of petitions of habeas corpus that the alleged victim filed to obtain her release. 38. The State underscores its contention that the right to access the courts was guaranteed to the alleged victim through various procedural mechanisms that recognize the principles established in the Convention. It argues that the petitions filed by Mrs. Andrade in exercise of this right were settled as promptly as possible, and while observing the rights of the accused. 39. The State argues that the Constitutional Court decided promptly, effectively, and impartially the petitions of habeas corpus that Mrs. Andrade filed and ruled in her favor. It states further that as a consequence of the efforts made and the complaint filed by the Vice Minister of Justice with the Attorney General of the Nation, an inquiry was instituted with the domestic courts against Judges Constancio Alcon Paco, Rolando Sarmiento and former Judge Alberto Costa Obregón. It reports that the Prosecutor assigned to the case has opened case 3870/03 against the afore-named judges who are charged with the crimes of unlawful incarceration, decisions contrary to the Constitution and the law, dereliction of duty and contempt of the rulings handed down in the habeas corpus and constitutional amparo proceedings. The accused were formally indicted on November 27, 2003. 40. As for the alleged violation of the right to property, the State claims that Mrs. Andrade remains in possession of her assets, with only the most minimal restriction on her right to dispose of them freely. That restriction would be immediately lifted in the event that she was acquitted. As to the alleged violation of the right to freedom of movement, the State asserts that the precautionary measure ordering her not to travel beyond the court’s jurisdiction is allowed by law and was applied by the competent judicial authority as required by law. 41. As for the admissibility requirements, the State argues that the petitioners did not exhaust the remedies under domestic law. It is therefore asking the Commission to declare the petition inadmissible. First, the State indicates that Bolivian law provides for a remedy of constitutional amparo. Its contention is that although this remedy is both adequate and effective, it was not invoked in any of the criminal cases prosecuted in the national courts. Second, the State observes that Mrs. Andrade did not file a petition of complaint with the Ombudsman, whose authorities include that of investigating acts or omissions that imply violations of the human rights recognized in the Constitution of Bolivia. The State’s third argument is that the petitioner did not avail herself of yet another remedy, which is the complaint with the Council of the Judiciary. This remedy can be used to get civil and criminal penalties imposed on officials whose 7