c. On March 22, 2004, the private complainants again submitted motions of constitutional amparo, this time against both signers of the ruling of July 5, 2003. 60 On April 2, 2004, the second Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice found the motion of constitutional amparo to be inadmissible, concluding that there were other remedies for challenging the allegedly illegal act.61 However, on July 2, 2004, finding, among other things, that nullification of the judgment meant a double victimization that could endanger the mental health of the victim, the Constitutional Court reversed the April 2 judgment and annulled its effects until a new ruling could be issued to resolve the appeal, "which must take into consideration that at the hearing in which the victim gave her statement, only the defense attorney of the accused was present."62 d. Following multiple refusals and excuses from a series of judges,63 finally, on April 11, 2005, the appeal was ruled on by the First Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice, fully annulling the judgment of Trial Court No. 4 and ordering that the trial be repeated by another Court "with the warning that in the hearing in which the victim gives her testimony, only the defense attorney of the accused may be present.”64 e. After a series of recusals and incidents, the second oral trial was finally carried out on September 15-20, 2005.65 - During the trial, the accused testified. He stated, among other things, that he went to Bolivia to do an internship with MAP, and they never told him he would be in charge of the girls, as they were being cared for by the housekeeper; he said that Brisa had classes and a program with the elderly; he described the relationship between them as "very close, they wrote letters, they gave gifts, and they went to the movies.”66 Regarding the sexual relations, he described them as consensual and said they had discussed the possibility of her becoming pregnant and how to avoid it. He also said that in March, Brisa had said she was pregnant, and because of that, they even planned "the baby's name" and to leave Bolivia, but that after a few days, Brisa told him she had "lost the baby." He also described the trip by Brisa and her parents to the United States as a trip aimed at fundraising and to attend the graduation of the girls’ two older brothers. He stated that during that time, he stayed in permanent contact with Brisa, who "sent him messages as often as twice a day" and told him about the incident with her brothers when they read her diary and her father punish her. Later, he described his relationship with his ex-girlfriend, Alison, who visited him in Bolivia during the time that Brisa was in the United States. Regarding this, he said that when he told Brisa he had decided to get back together with Alison, Brisa had responded, "no more, I gave you a chance." He also described Brisa's father's trip to Bolivia for several days on July 14, 2002, with several "Americans."67 He later described an invitation to a camp with young people that had been used to remove things from his room—such as a card Brisa had given him—and his arrest, which he had been tricked into and at which Brisa’s father had been present and told him that the family knew everything. He next described what he experienced in prison and concluded by stating that "what he wanted least was to do harm to Brisa; there was never any violence, threats, or intimidation between him and Brisa. All of this was made up by [Brisa's father] and his economic power. The things between them happened. He made mistakes, like any human."68 On cross-examination, he insisted that he "never hit Brisa, never verbally intimidated her, never negatively influenced Brisa, and neither did she ask to stop having sexual relations, they did it with her consent."69 At the end of the trial, he made a statement, saying that he had been "subjected to this process for three years, punctually complying with the requirements, and did not try to escape, even when his own family begged Motion of Constitutional Amparo against Judgment Execution, presented by the private complainants on March 22, 2004. Second criminal proceeding A, pages 98-113. 61 Amparo judgment, Civil Chamber of the Second Superior Court of Justice, Cochabamba, April 2, 2004. Second criminal proceeding A, pages 115-116vta. 62 Constitutional judgment 1015/2004-R. Sucre, July 2, 2004. Second criminal proceeding A, pages 119-124vta. 63 Second criminal proceeding, pages 134-159. 64 Judgment on appeal, First Criminal Chamber, Superior Court of Justice, Cochabamba. Bolivia, April 11, 2005. Second criminal proceeding A, pages 163-163vta. 65 Record of oral trial hearing, Trial Court No. 2, Cochabamba, Bolivia (“second oral trial”). Second criminal proceeding A, pages 249-271vta. 66 Testimony of Eduardo Gutiérrez Angulo, Second oral trial, second criminal proceeding A, page 257. 67 Testimony of Eduardo Gutiérrez Angulo, Second oral trial, second criminal proceeding A, page 257vta. 68 Testimony of Eduardo Gutiérrez Angulo, Second oral trial, second criminal proceeding A, page 252. 69 Testimony of Eduardo Gutiérrez Angulo, Second oral trial, second criminal proceeding A, page 252vta. 60 9