49 A.2. Plenary and Appeal Stage 145. On September 23 and 29, 2004, three of the accused requested that the Ninth Criminal Court of Santa Cruz dismiss the criminal action based on the delay in the proceeding which was “not attributable to their conduct.”182 This request was also presented, later on, by two other accused on January 13, 2005, before the Fifth Executing Judge of First Instance in Criminal Matters of Santa Cruz (hereinafter, “Fifth Criminal Judge of First Instance”).183 146. On January 19, 2005, the Fifth Criminal Judge of First Instance declared the criminal action dismissed as time barred and closed the proceedings in favor of all the accused (supra para. 145) based on the fact that the delays could be attributed to government authorities and the civilian party and not to the accused.184 This decision was appealed by Rebeca Ibsen Castro and Antonia Gladys Oroza on January 25 and 27, 2005, respectively.185 147. On April 18, 2005, the First Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Santa Cruz overturned the order dismissing the criminal action issued on January 19, 2005 (supra para. 146), and ordered the prosecution of the case.186 148. On December 6, 2008, the Seventh First Instance Court in Civil and Commercial Matters handed down a first instance judgment declaring that the statute of limitations barred penal action for the crimes of abuse and torture, criminal association, criminal organization, murder and concealment, for which only some of the accused were convicted for illegal deprivation of liberty against José Luis Ibsen Peña, among others. One of the accused was convicted of the crime of accomplice in the crime of unlawful deprivation of liberty. Furthermore, in said decision it was declared the perpetration of the crime of illegal deprivation of liberty regarding Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas.187 149. On September 28, 2009, the Superior District Court of Santa Cruz upheld, in part, the first instance judgment (supra para. 148) and ratified the sentences imposed on all the 182 Cf. Briefs submitted by Oscar Menacho Vaca, Pedro Percy Gonzales Monasterio and Juan Antonio Elio Rivero, on September 23 and 29, 2004, respectively (Case file 37/2000, Volume 14, folios 6647 to 6649, 6663 to 6664, 15411 to 15413 and 15428 to 15429). 183 Cf. Brief submitted by Pedro Percy Gonzales Monasterio and Juan Antonio Elio Rivero, on January 13, 2005 (Case file 37/2000, Volume 17, folios 7389ter to 7393 and 16153 to 16157). The case file had been sent by the Ninth First Instance Criminal Court of Santa Cruz to the Fifth First Instance Criminal Court of Santa Cruz in compliance with “Circular no. 89/2004 of November 20, 2004” and “Circular No. 113/04, of December 20, 2004” of the President of the Superior Court of Justice of the District of Santa Cruz (Case file 37/2000, Volume 17, folios 7374 to 7375 and 16136 to 16137). 184 Cf. Ruling of the Fifth First Instance Criminal Court of Santa Cruz of January 19, 2005 (Case file 37/2000, Volume 17, folios 7401 to 7443 and 16165 to 16207). 185 Cf. Briefs of appeal submitted by Rebeca Ibsen Castro and Antonia Gladys Oroza on January 25 and 27, 2005, respectively (Case file 37/2000, Volume 17, folios 7454 to 7455, 7465 to 7480, 16218 to 16219 and 16229 to 16244). 186 Cf. Ruling of the First Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Santa Cruz, issued on April 18, 2005 (Case File 37/2000, Volume 17, folios 7582 to 7586 and 16344 to 16348). 187 Cf. Judgment of the Seventh First Insance Civil and Commercial Court of Santa Cruz of December 6, 2008. The reading of this judgment was carried out during the public hearing held on December 13, 2008 (Case file 27/2000, Volumes 27 and 28, folios 10770 to 10832).