possible to imagine Brisa having been intimidated by Eduardo into having sexual relations, but rather those relations took place as a result of a systematic and sustained use of seduction and trickery [...] typically characteristic of estupro.”46 Although when it analyzed in detail the evidence provided, the Court concluded that the aggravating factors provided for in subparagraphs 1 and 2 of article 310 had not been demonstrated, it did find the factors set forth in subparagraph 3 had been demonstrated, as they were related to the 4th degree of consanguinity.47 o. The judgment was appealed by the private complainants on April 11, 2003,48 and by the convicted person on April 14, 2003.49 Ruling on the appeals on July 5, 2003, the First Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Cochabamba ruled to fully annulled the judgments of Trial Court No. 4 on having received testimony from the victim in a private session without the intervention or attendance of the subjects involved—mainly the accused—thereby violating both the rights of the accused and the rights of the victim.50 A cassation appeal was brought against the judgment by the private complainants on June 23, 2003,51 and the Office of the Public Prosecutor joined the appeal on June 24, 2003.52 In general terms, both argue that the judge respected the rights of the accused and acted in compliance with the Constitution, international treaties, and the law—in particular the provisions of article 203 of the Criminal Procedural Code—to prevent Brisa's revictimization. However, on July 24, 2003, the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation ruled the cassation appeal inadmissible for having failed to invoke counterindicating precedents, as required under Bolivian law.53 2. Second criminal proceeding54 a. With the case sent back following the annulment of the judgment of Trial Court No. 4, the proceeding was first brought before Trial Court No. 155 and then Trial Court No. 2 of Cochabamba.56 b. On November 19, 2003, the private complainants filed a motion of constitutional protection (amparo), with the aim of nullifying the decision of the Supreme Court of Justice of Cochabamba annulling the judgment and recognize the procedural soundness of the hearing in which the witness testimony was taken confidentially by Trial Court No. 4.57 On December 2, 2003, the Third Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Cochabamba found the interpretation of article 203 of the Criminal Procedural Code made by Trial Court No. 4 was correct, therefore admitting the motion and granting the amparo, striking down the decision of July 5, 2003, and ordering the First Criminal Chamber to issue a new ruling on the matters of form and merit raised in the appeal, sending review of the resolution before the Constitutional Court. 58 However, on March 3, 2004, the Constitutional Court reversed the resolution and denied the motion, arguing there were formal problems with the motion for constitutional amparo (as it had been filed against only one of the members of the chamber).59 she did not allow herself to be pressured. Therefore, she has the capacity to react against any pressure," Judgment. First criminal proceeding, page 248. 46 Judgment. First criminal proceeding, page 248. 47 Judgment. First criminal proceeding, page 248vta. 48 Appeal, José Miguel de Angulo and Luz Stella Losada de Angulo, April 11, 2003. First criminal proceeding, pages 266-273vta. 49 Appeal, Eduardo Gutiérrez Angulo, April 14, 2003. First criminal proceeding, pages 302-306vta. 50 Judgment on appeal, First Criminal Chamber, Superior Court of Justice, Cochabamba. Bolivia, June 5, 2003. First criminal proceeding, pages 330-331. 51 Cassation appeal, First criminal proceeding, pages 338-342. 52 First criminal proceeding, page 333. 53 Judgment, Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. Sucre, July 24, 2003. First criminal proceeding, pages 360-363. 54 Document attached to the comments on the merits of Bolivia, May 11, 2018, Annex 2 A – criminal proceeding 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"). 55 Resolution of Trial Court No. 1, Cochabamba, Bolivia, October 29, 2003. Second criminal proceeding A, pages 4-4vta. 56 Resolution of conflict of competence, First Criminal Chamber, Superior Court of Justice, Cochabamba, Bolivia, July 16, 2005. Second criminal proceeding A, pages 199-199vta. 57 Motion of Constitutional Amparo against Judgment Execution, presented by the private complainants on November 19, 2003. Second criminal proceeding A, pages 19-33vta. 58 Amparo judgment, Third Superior Criminal Court of Justice, Cochabamba, December 2, 2004. Second criminal proceeding A, pages 5357vta. 59 Constitutional Judgment 0295/2004-R. Sucre, March 3, 2004. Second criminal proceeding A, pages 68-74. 8