latter to 18 years. Francis Elida Primentela Merino and Claudia Mariela Valencia Alarcón were found guilty of complicity in the crime of aggravated robbery; the former was sentenced to seven years in prison; the latter was given a suspended sentence of three years’ imprisonment. Finally, Leonel Eber Delgadillo Salvatierra was found guilty of the crime of aggravated larceny and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment been granted a judicial pardon for being a first-time offender.78 36. The verdict was based solely on the evidence presented in the oral proceedings, which did not include the statements of the accused prior to the trial.79 The Commission considers it important to stress that the Trial Court did not take into account the testimony of Walter Osinaga Zambrana, General Commandant of the Bolivian Police, because it considered it confusing “and even contradictory, such that it did not provide the Court with credible and valid information.”80 Furthermore, although, as is mentioned in paragraph 34 above, in the course of the proceedings the trial court decided to exclude evidence that it considered had been obtained in contravention of Articles 180 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and 21 of the Constitution,81 in its decision it stated: In the case before us, it has been insinuated, albeit indirectly, that the apprehension of some of the accused was allegedly done in an irregular manner. If so, their lawyers should have denounced such facts in a timely manner to the Investigating Court for Criminal Matters (Precautionary Measures), which is precisely authority in charge of oversight of such guarantees. Since that did not occur and given that that court decided on its own authority to order the defendants to be placed in pretrial detention, any such supposed anomalies have been regularized. Therefore, at this stage of the proceedings, the defendants’ claims that they were unlawfully detained are without any legal foundation.82 37. Also of great significance for this case was the trial court's determination in its decision that, taking into account that during the oral proceedings it was alleged that human rights violations were committed by public officials in the detention of the defendants as well as during the investigations, it ordered that the antecedents be referred to the Public Prosecution Service for investigation,83 as well as setting down in the record the evidence provided in connection with those allegations.84 38. The decision was appealed by those convicted, who reiterated the allegations that their human rights had been violated during the detention and investigation, and submitted, among other things, that the detention and collection of evidence was unlawful, and therefore that the proceedings were null and void. The First Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice ruled on the appeal on August 21, 2003, finding the submissions inadmissible and upholding the appealed judgment, without addressing the aforementioned allegations.85 The convicted persons filed a cassation appeal against the judgment, offering similar arguments, but the appeal was ruled inadmissible by the Criminal chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice on October 29, 2003.86 39. The State says that the petitioners' allegations were the subject of an ex officio inquiry by the State and rejected by the Public Prosecution Service in 2014 for lack of evidence. However, it does not enclose any documents in support of that assertion.87 Annex 01, Prosegur case file, Judgment - Operative Part, Hearing of May 16, 2003, pp. 1580 (a) to (h). Annex 01, Prosegur case file, Judgment of May 16, 2003, pp. 1603-1671. 80 Annex 01, Prosegur case file, Judgment of May 16, 2003, p. 1653 81 Annex 01, Prosegur case file, Hearing of April 22, 2003, pp. 1378-1389. 82 Annex 01, Prosegur case file, Judgment of May 16, 2003, pp. 1660-1661. 83 Annex 01, Prosegur case file, Judgment - Operative Part, Hearing of May January 16, 2003, p. 1580(g) and Judgment of May 16, 2003, p. 1670. 84 Annex 01, Prosegur case file, Judgment of May 16, 2003, pp. 1624 and 1635. 85 Annex 01, Prosegur case file, Judgment of August 21, 2003, First Criminal Chamber, Superior Court of Justice, La Paz, Bolivia, Resolution 539/03, pp. 1999-2000. 86 Annex 01, Prosegur case file, Judgment of October 29, 2003, Criminal Chamber, Supreme Court of Justice, Bolivia, Order of the Supreme Court 541, page number illegible. 87 Observations brief, Blas Valencia et al. case, La Paz, October 31, 2016, par. 36. 78 79 11