g. On September 28, 2005, Trial Court No. 2, in view of the acquittal of Eduardo Gutiérrez, ordered his travel restrictions lifted.92 h. The judgment was appealed by Brisa on October 8, 2005,93 and by the Office of the Public Prosecutor on October 11, 2005.94 Eduardo responded to these appeals on October 24, 2005.95 Oral arguments in support of the appeal were heard on March 1, 2006, in the presence of the representative of the Office of the Public prosecutor, the attorneys of the parties, and the accused.96 Ruling on the appeals on March 6, 2006, the First Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Cochabamba decided to uphold the judgment under appeal, finding, among other things, that it was not demonstrated during the trial that Brisa had been the victim of intimidation or blackmail, and could "have been terrorized to the point of bending her will and capacity to resist, aspects that were not proven beyond a doubt throughout the trial." Therefore, there had been no violation of the law.97 This ruling was subject to a cassation by the private complainant on March 22, 2006, alleging inconsistency, defective assessment of the evidence, and other things. 98 The cassation was declared admissible by resolution dated May 2, 2006.99 On November 16, 2006, the First Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation found that the grounds of the judgment under appeal were "inconsistent and outside the bounds of the law." Specifically, it found that although a defendant cannot be convicted for facts or circumstances other than those set forth in the charges, "in this case, the fact is sexual relations with an individual over the age of 14 and under the age of 18 […] a criminal offense classified under the nomen juris of a crime against sexual freedom.” Commentators refer to the “conditional separation” that permits a judge to, “without modifying the facts [...] issue a judgment for a different legal classification.” It found that “the Trial Court did not discharge the criminal offense of estupro,” making the judgment “an improper ruling that must be reviewed by the Court ad quem,” thus striking down the appeal.”100 i. With the case returned to the Superior Court of Justice of Cochabamba, the President and one of the Judges of the First Criminal Chamber recused themselves, indicating that it was their view that the application of the principle of iura novit curia was not apposite in the case, opinion they had expressed when issuing the judgment and extrajudicially after doing so. They therefore excused themselves from continuing to hear the case.101 Their recusal was rejected by the Second Criminal Chamber on February 7, 2007, as there was no record of the extrajudicial statement. 102 However, on February 12, 2007, the President of the First Criminal Chamber ratified her recusal and maintained it, indicating that “there was no criminal offense in sexual relations between two young people who began a romance that led them to challenge the prejudices of a family and the principles it maintain" and that "individuals must have the freedom to make decisions and the courage to face the consequences of these decisions;"103 another Judge of the Chamber also joined her reasoning, reiterating his recusal. 104 However, these recusal's were again rejected by the Second Criminal Chamber on the same grounds on February 21, 2007.105 Ruling of September 28, 2005, Trial Court No. 5. Document attached to the comments on the merits of Bolivia, May 11, 2018, Annex 2 B – criminal process pursued by the Office of the Public Prosecutor and private prosecution of José Miguel de Angulo, Luz Stella Losada de Angulo, and Brisa Liliana de Angulo Losada against Eduardo Gutiérrez Angulo for the crime of aggravated rape (“second criminal proceeding B”), page 297. 93 Second criminal proceeding B, pages 426-436vta. 94 Second criminal proceeding B, pages 465-469. 95 Second criminal proceeding B, pages 476-483vta. 96 Record of oral arguments in hearing on the motion for limited appeal, First Criminal Chamber, Superior Court of Justice, Cochabamba, March 1, 2006. Second criminal proceeding B, pages 501-503vta 97 Judgment on limited appeal, First Criminal Chamber, Superior Court of Justice, Cochabamba. Bolivia, March 6, 2006. Second criminal proceeding B, pages 504-506. 98 Cassation appeal and complementary material. Second criminal proceeding B, pages 529-538, 540-541. 99 Second criminal proceeding B, pages 546-548. 100 Judgment, Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation. Sucre, November 16, 2006. Second criminal proceeding B, pages 561-565vta. 101 Second criminal proceeding B, pages 570-571. 102 Decision of the Second Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Cochabamba, February 7, 2007. Second criminal proceeding B, pages 575-575vta. 103 Second criminal proceeding B, pages 578. 104 Second criminal proceeding B, pages 585. 105 Second criminal proceeding B, pages 587. 92 13