Whoever, through seduction or deception, has sexual intercourse with a person of either sex; over fourteen (14) years old and under eighteen (18), will be punished with deprivation of liberty for two (2) to six (6) years. 13. The ruling of the Cochabamba Sentencing Court No. 4 was appealed by both parties in April 2003. 34 While the prosecution alleged the concurrence of errors, improper and erroneous application of the law and violation of the substantive law by the Court (focusing on the alleged erroneous subsumption of E.G.A's conduct in the offense of "statutory rape" and not "rape" ), the defendants alleged that Ms. Losada's testimony was taken without the defendant and his lawyer being present, which would constitute a procedural defect, the consequence of which would render proceedings absolutely invalid. After several appeals, on April 11, 2005, the Third Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Cochabamba annulled the sentence in its entirety and ordered that the trial be held again by another court. 35 14. In May 2005, the second series of criminal proceedings (2005-2007) against E.G.A began before the Sentencing Court No. 2 of Cochabamba, the Public Prosecution again charged E.G.A with the crime of aggravated "rape" under sections 1, 2, 3 and 7 of Article 310 of the Criminal Code. 36 On September 16, 2005, the public hearing began before Sentencing Court No. 2 (with the presence of E.G.A.'s lawyer in Ms. Losada's statement) and, seven days later, the Court issued a ruling absolving E.G.A of all charges due to lack of sufficient evidence. 37 Specifically, the Court declared that the elements of the offense of "rape" did not exist because it could not conclude with certainty that "carnal access" had occurred, because it did not find conclusive evidence that physical or moral violence had occurred at the time of the event, because contradictory testimonies called into question the only evidence accepted by the court that would demonstrate its occurrence, and because it was not possible to identify guilt or malice in the conduct of the accused. 38 15. Ms. Losada’s representatives and the Public Prosecutor's Office appealed the ruling of Sentencing Court No. 2, and their appeals were dismissed by the Criminal Chamber of the First Supreme Court of Justice of Cochabamba. 39 The representatives then filed an appeal, which culminated in the annulment by the First Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation of the order of March 6, 2006 (which had confirmed the ruling of the Sentencing Court No. 2) and demanding that the First Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Cochabamba re-examine Ms. Losada’s representatives’ appeal. 40 Finally, in May 2007, the First Criminal Chamber annulled the September 2005 ruling of the Sentencing Court No. 2 due to the incorrect subsumption of the offense of "statutory rape", ordering the case be returned for another trial. 41 16. Thus, in 2008 preparations began for the third series of criminal proceedings against E.G.A. The fact that E.G.A left Bolivia in 2007 and did not attend any legal proceedings made it impossible to hold hearings and continue the process. 42 Despite Cf. Judgment, para. 62. Ibid., para. 64; Sentence issued by the Third Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Cochabamba on April 11, 2005 (evidence file, fls. 8123 to 8124). 36 Cf. Judgment, para. 65. 37 Ibid., para. 66; Judgment issued by Sentencing Court No. 2 on September 16, 2005 (evidence file, fls. 8294 to 8310). 38 Cf. Judgment issued by Sentencing Court No. 2 on September 16, 2005 (evidence file, fls. 8294 to 8310). 39 Cf. Judgment, para. 68. 40 Ibid. 41 Ibid. 42 Ibid., para. 69-71. 34 35 5