26 D. Administrative proceeding 86. On May 12, 2002, the Technical Director of the La Paz Departmental Health Service instructed the Legal Advisory Services Unit of the La Paz Departmental Health Service to open an administrative proceeding, following various recommendations by the Ombudsman and the Minister of Health and Social Services.82 On May 17, the administrative proceeding was opened against the instructing physician and the resident doctor.83 87. On July 25, 2002, the Head of the La Paz SEDES Legal Advisory Services Unit issued the final decision in the administrative proceeding, which established the administrative liability of the instructing physician and ordered his dismissal based on article 29 of Law 1178,84 while declaring that the case against the resident doctor was dismissed, because he was acting in his capacity as a resident doctor and, according to the internal regulations, “was completely prohibited from performing any surgical procedure without the guidance of the ‘professor,’ in this case, Dr. Edgar Torrico Ameller.”85 88. This decision reviewed the statements of the two doctors. In particular, it indicated that the resident doctor had stated that “it was necessary to perform the caesarean section and also the tubal ligation from a medical point of view, but incorrect from a legal point of view, because we should have waited for I.V., after the operation, to take a decision on whether or not to have her tubes tied.”86 89. On February 12, 2003, the instructing physician filed an “appeal” against the decision, requesting that the information from the medical audits be taken into consideration, which “established support for him” and also the statements revealing that I.V. gave her verbal consent to the tubal ligation. He also indicated that he had “complied with the rules of procedure and the Bolivian Health Regulations, when carrying out the delicate task of saving [I.V.’s] life.”87 90. On March 10, 2003, the Head of the La Paz SEDES Legal Advisory Services Unit issued a new administrative decision, based on articles 21 and 24 of Supreme Decree No. 26237 which regulated the appeal for annulment of a decision. In this decision, it was decided to annul the declaration of administrative liability and dismissal of the instructing physician and ordered the closure of the procedure against him based on, among other matters, the following information: 1. [Under the] Bolivian Health Regulations [...] the goal is to reduce mortality due to high risk factors and, by medical decision, a tubal ligation may be performed in serious cases. Cf. Final decision No. 020/2002 issued by the Legal Advisory Services Unit of the La Paz Departmental Health Service on July 25, 2002 (evidence file, volume XIV, annex 3 to the representative’s final arguments, folios 5769 to 5771). 82 Cf. Final decision No. 020/2002 issued by the Legal Advisory Services Unit of the La Paz Departmental Health Service on July 25, 2002 (evidence file, volume XIV, annex 3 to the representative’s final arguments, folios 5769 to 5771). 83 Article 29. Administrative liability shall be incurred when the act or omission contravenes the legal and administrative order and the norms that regulate the function-related conduct of the public servant. This shall be determined by the internal procedures of each entity that take into account the results of the audit, if one has been conducted. The competent authority shall apply, based on the gravity of the offense, the sanctions of: a fine of up to 20% of the monthly remuneration; suspension for a maximum of 30 days, or dismissal. 84 Final decision No. 020/2002 issued by the Legal Advisory Services Unit of the La Paz Departmental Health Service on July 25, 2002 (evidence file, volume XIV, annex 3 to the representative’s final arguments, folios 5769 to 5771). 85 Final decision No. 020/2002 issued by the Legal Advisory Services Unit of the La Paz Departmental Health Service on July 25, 2002 (evidence file, volume XIV, annex 3 to the representative’s final arguments, folios 5769 to 5771). 86 The brief of this appear does not appear in the case file, but was reviewed in the unnumbered administrative decision issued by the Legal Advisory Services Unit of the La Paz Departmental Health Service on March 10, 2003 (evidence file, volume VII, annex 21 to the submission of the case, folios 2175 to 2176). 87