suspected was received; the judge opened the indictment stage; Mrs. Oroza made a statement, accompanied by her lawyer; those accused filed their defense plea based on the fact that the criminal proceeding was subject to the statute of limitations; the judge granted the victim’s mother a hearing and then decreed that the criminal proceeding had extinguished due to the statute of limitations. The decision was appealed and the Superior Court confirmed it. The victim’s next of kin filed an application for amparo that was not accepted, and an appeal was filed before the Constitutional Court. In response to the request made to the Court by the representatives of the victim and his next of kin and the Commission, that “it should deliver judgment invalidating the legal rulings that had been awarded”, Bolivia stated that “it has no objection to those guilty of this crime being tried […and] to the Court declaring some type of legal solution so that a judgment of the InterAmerican Court may amend or modify the decision of domestic courts.” It does not know what this possible legal solution could be. The State will respect the decision that the Court makes in this respect; b) location and delivery of the mortal remains Unfortunately, there is not the slightest indication about the possible whereabouts of the body of José Carlos Trujillo Oroza. Satisfaction of this claim “will be the result of the legal proceeding that is conducted with the participation of the victim’s next of kin”; c) elaboration of a draft law that sanctions the forced disappearance of persons The draft law that sanctions with a prison sentence the forced disappearance of persons is being processed before the Congress of Bolivia; it has been approved in first debate by the Chamber of Deputies and follows its normal course in that Chamber. The State is willing to comply with the deadline established by the Court for the promulgation of the draft law as a law of the Republic, and to ratify it and publish it in the official gazette. Consequently, Bolivia has already complied with the third claim in the application; d) public apology in the media to the victim’s family The Minister for Foreign Affairs of Bolivia sent a note to the victim’s next of kin in which he stated that “he profoundly regret[ted] the facts.” Since The Commission accepted this note as valid when discussing the acknowledgement of the facts, it should also be valid to show that Bolivia “has granted satisfaction to the victim’s next of kin.” The acknowledgement of the facts and the judgment on merits in the case have been “widely disseminated in all the mass media”, which constitutes moral satisfaction. In view of the foregoing, the State has complied with the fourth claim in the application; and e) monument in memory of the victim The State considers it fair “that a school […] should be given the name of José Carlos Trujillo Oroza, as a way of preserving his memory.”