19. She added that on December 12, 2007, the Second Criminal Court issued a decision i) sentencing three of the accused to three years in prison as perpetrators of the crimes of armed insurrection against the security and sovereignty of the State, terrorism, and concealment, in addition to being complicit in the crime of murder; 2 ii) sentencing six of the accused to three years in prison for the crime of concealment and false testimony; iii) sentencing one of the accused to two years in prison for the crime of concealment; and iv) acquitting six of the accused of the crimes of false testimony and concealment. The decision indicates the existence of criminal acts against other persons not included within the scope of the order, for which purpose the record was referred to the Office of the Public Prosecutor for the respective action. 20. The petitioner reported that she filed an appeal with the District Superior Court because she felt that due to “poor legal handling” on the part of the judge, the decision imposed “ridiculous penalties” on most of the accused. She added that when a second instance decision was handed down confirming nearly all points of the first instance decision, she filed a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court of Justice. She noted that the decision in this appeal remains pending as of this date. 21. She alleged that throughout this process a series of irregularities have been committed that, in her view, have resulted in a denial of justice. As an example, she mentioned that the process has been carried out extremely slowly, that deadlines established by domestic legislation for each stage in the process have not been met, and that hearings were often suspended due to the failure to appear of both the prosecutor and the accused, but the judge in the case did not use the legal mechanisms available to ensure their appearance. She emphasized that the judge failed to adopt measures to speed up the process, even though the dilatory strategy employed by the accused by obvious. 3 She indicated that the result was an evidence stage that lasted six years, in which there were periods of inactivity such as the year 2005 during which only three hearings were held, with a similar situation in 2006. She specified that the evidence stage concluded in September 2006 and that the indictment was issued in May of 2007. 22. The petitioner mentioned that the negligent attitude of the court authorities is also reflected in the lifting of precautionary measures issued against the only person convicted for the most serious crimes, who was not deemed to be in contempt. She emphasized that although this is a very dangerous person, he is free and intimidating the relatives of the alleged victim. 23. The petitioner also alleged that the judge in the case did not require the processing of highly important evidence, such as statements from senior ranks responsible for the event, including Luís García Meza. She emphasized that in an interview submitted by him, he mentioned some data on the fate of the body of Marcelo Quiroga Santa Cruz. In the petitioner’s view, the statement of Mr. García Meza could have shed light on what happened to Juan Carlos Flores Bedregal as well. She added that, nonetheless, the hearing at which the former President was to make a statement was suspended due to health issues, without a new hearing being set for a later date. She stated that the judge in the case decided to close the evidentiary phase without hearing this statement. According to the petitioner, this 2 According to the text of the decision, provided as an annex by the petitioner, two of the three persons convicted were held to be in contempt. 3 She explained that this strategy consisted of an accused’s failure to appear at each hearing in order to achieve a suspension.