sovereignty of the State, and criminal association. It added that this decision is being carried out, which demonstrates the State’s interest in a clarification of the facts. 31. The State noted that some actions in this process were used as the basis for initiating criminal prosecution against Franz Pizarro Solano and others with respect to what happened to Juan Carlos Flores Bedregal. 32. With respect to the development of this process, the State indicated that it has 102 bodies, that an initial order of investigation was issued against three individuals for the crimes of murder, armed insurrection against the security and sovereignty of the State, terrorism, and concealment, and against nine individuals for the crimes of false testimony, concealment, and criminal association. 33. It indicated that expanded orders were later issued to include other defendants, and that a final order of investigation was issued on April 18, 2001. It added that once the case was referred for trial and procedures in this phase were carried out, a decision was issued on December 12, 2007 convicting ten of the accused and acquitting six others. 34. The State continued by stating that the parties submitted appeals, which were decided on August 22, 2008 by the Third Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of the District of La Paz, confirming the decision in part and revoking the acquittal of some of the accused, whom it declared guilty of the crime of concealment and subject to prison terms of two years. 35. The State noted that the current status of the process is a referral to the Supreme Court of Justice, due to a cassation appeal filed by seven individuals.4 36. The Bolivian State asked the Commission to appreciate the complexity of the case and its effects in terms of the time needed to develop domestic proceedings. The State alleged that the complexity of the matter derives from the circumstances in which the events took place, i.e., during the dictatorship and in the context of the complex conduct of an unconstitutional military organization. It emphasized that those involved in the crime belonged to a military structure trained to make evidence disappear. 37. According to the State, consideration is the limited participation in time and weakness in the production of ignorance of the domiciles of several of the another element that should be taken into the process of the “accusing institution” 5 at the evidence. It added that another problem was accused. 38. The State indicated that the conduct of the judicial authorities should also be taken into consideration. In this respect, it added the last two texts of proceedings to demonstrate progress made in enforcing the decision,6 in which the parties have been allowed to submit appeals in accordance with the law. 39. Among other difficulties that have delayed the process, the State mentioned the specifics of the criminal process under the previous procedural system, in which the judge had to investigate and take precautions to safeguard the procedural guarantees of the 4 The State does not specify who filed this appeal. 5 The State does not explain whether it is referring to the Office of the Public Prosecutor or to the relatives of the alleged victim. 6 The State does not explain the reference to the “enforcement of the decision.” The Commission understands that the process is still in the appeals stage.