indictment.44 On this matter, Law 3326 of January 18, 2006 incorporated the crime of forced disappearance of persons in the Criminal Code in the following terms: Whoever, with the authorization, support, or acquiescence of any organ of the State, deprives one or more persons of their liberty and deliberately hides or denies information regarding acknowledgment of the deprivation of liberty or the whereabouts of the person, thereby preventing the implementation of remedies and procedural guarantees, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment (presidio) for between five and fifteen years. If as a consequence of this deed the victim should suffer grave physical or psychological damage, the sentence shall be to between fifteen and twenty years' rigorous imprisonment. If the perpetrator is a government official, the maximum sentence shall be increased by one third. If, as a consequence of the deed, the victim should die, the sentence imposed shall be thirty years of rigorous imprisonment.45 47. Against the judgment of December 12, 2007, some of the accused and legal counsel for the aggrieved filed an appeal with the Third Criminal Division of the Higher Court of the Judicial District of La Paz.46 The representative of the Flores Bedregal family argued in her appeal that the acquittal of several of the accused had been based on an improper assessment of the evidence gathered through the proceedings.47 48. The case file contains a communication sent by the Ombudsperson's Office to the Minister of the Interior referring to complaints filed by Ms. Olga Flores Bedregal, pointing out that she "was being followed by individuals who even wrote down the number plate of her vehicle" after that judgment had been handed down and alleging that her attorney had also received threats. The Ombudsperson's Office requested that the necessary measures be adopted to guarantee the security of the family members of Mr. Flores Bedregal and of their attorney.48. The IACHR has no information regarding protection measures for the family. 49. It further transpires that, on April 9, 2008, the appellate prosecutor's office for the District of La Paz requested the annulment of all the proceedings thus far "due to the delays and harm done to the intervening parties."49 Appendix 6. Higher District Court of La Paz. Bolivia. Resolution No. 129/2007 of the Second Criminal Settlement Enforcement Court. Trial of Franz Pizarro Solano et al. for the crimes of armed uprising against the security and sovereignty of the State and others. December 12, 2007. Attached to the State’s communication of December 6, 2011. 45 Law 3326 of January 18, 2006, published in the Official Gazette of Bolivia on January 21, 2006. On this matter, the State stressed that legal characterization of the offense of forced disappearance was undertaken in response to an order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Trujillo Oroza case. State’s communication of December 6, 2011. 46 See: Appendix 8. Report of the Higher District Court of La Paz in the judicial proceedings entitled Public Prosecutor's Office (Ministerio Público) versus Franz Pizarro et al., p. 6. Appendix 1 of the State's communication of October 31, 2008; and Appendix 21, Resolution No. 103/2008 issued on August 22, 2008 by the Third Criminal Division of the Higher Court of the Judicial District of La Paz. Attached to the State’s communication of June 1, 2010. 47 See: Appendix 21. Resolution No. 103/2008 issued on August 22, 2008 by the Third Criminal Division of the Higher Court of the Judicial District of La Paz. 10-11. Attached to the State’s communication of Tuesday, June 1, 2010. In a complaint filed with the Office of the Ombudsperson, the family members also maintained that the judgment had issued "minimal sentences for several of the "co-defendants" and that the acquittal of six "members of the repressive regime of that time" stood in blatant contradiction to the views expressed in the judgment. See: Appendix 22. Complaint filed on April 15, 2008 with the Ombudsperson against the Public Prosecutor of the District of La Paz. Attached to the petitioners’ communication of June 30, 2008. 48 See: Appendix 23. Communication from the Office of the Ombudsperson addressed to the Ministry of the Interior, dated February 25, 2008. Attached to the petitioners’ communication of April 29, 2009. 49 Appendix 24. Legal Opinion issued by the District Appellate Prosecutor, Teresa Vera Loza, on April 9, 2008, numbered paragraph 4. Attached to the petitioners’ communication of June 30, 2008. In response to a complaint by the family, on November 30, 2009, the National Disciplinary Tribunal declared that this Public Prosecutor had been guilty of serious misconduct in her handling of this matter. See: Appendix 25. Complaint lodged by Olga Flores Bedregal on May 8, 2012 with the Inspector General of the Public Prosecutors' Office; Appendix 26, Request by family members of Juan Carlos Flores Bedregal to the President of the Human Rights Commission of the Chamber of Deputies, dated April 14, 2008. Both documents attached to the petitioner's communication of June 30, 2008; Appendix 27. Request by the Office of the Inspector General of the Public Prosecutors' Office to the Third Criminal Division of the Higher Court of Justice of La Paz, dated September 24, 2008. Attached to the State's communication of October 31, 2008; Appendix 28. Resolution No. 132/2008 of October 22, 2008 issued by the Office of the Inspector General of the Public Prosecutors' Office. Attached to the petitioners’ communication of March 31, 2009. Appendix 29. Minutes of the preliminary hearing. National Disciplinary Tribunal, November 30, 2009. Appendix to the petitioner's communication of December 20, 2009; and Appendix 30. Resolution No. 006/2010. National Disciplinary Tribunal, February 19, 2010. Attached to the petitioners’ communication of March 15, 2010. 44 12