30 objection of unfounded proceedings, because the Public Prosecution Service should not have filed an action against him, since, as a medical professional, his actions were subject to specific rules and regulations.114 The Second Criminal Chamber of the La Paz Superior Court of Justice required that the formal defects and omissions noted in the appeal be rectified. 115 Meanwhile, in response to the restricted appeal, I.V. asked the Court to confirm the judgment that had been delivered and argued that “the main purpose [of the appeal was] to gain time so that in February [2005] the criminal action would extinguish.”116 102. The appeal was decided by the Second Criminal Chamber of the La Paz Superior Court of Justice on October 22, 2004.117 The Chamber annulled the appealed judgment in its entirety and ordered that the case be heard by another court. As grounds for this decision, the Chamber considered that the appealed judgment had not complied fully with the legal provisions regulating the formal requirements and the substantiation of the judgment.118 103. I.V. filed a cassation appeal against the said decision,119 which was declared inadmissible by the First Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice on February 1, 2005, considering that, even though the appellant had forwarded the precedents that she had cited as being contradictory, she had not “specifie[d] the similar facts, or explain[ed] clearly the contradictory legal meaning between the contested judgment and the precedents she ha[d] forwarded, thus failing to comply with basic requirements […].”120 E.3 Third oral proceeding 104. The Superior Court of Justice returned the case to the Copacabana Trial Court,121 which, in turn, referred the case to the Trial Court of Sica Sica, province of Aroma, on August 2, 2005,122 and the matter was admitted in this court on August 3, 2005,123 in compliance with the decision of the Second Criminal Chamber of the La Paz Superior Court of Justice (supra para. 102). When the legal rule that is cited as having been disregarded or erroneously applied constitutes a procedural flaw, the remedy shall only be admissible if the interested party has opportunely claimed its correction or has reserved the right to appeal, except in cases of absolute nullity or in cases of defects in the judgment pursuant to the provisions of articles 169 and 370 of this Code. This remedy may only be filed against judgments and with the restrictions established in the following articles. Cf. Restricted appeal filed by Dr. Edgar Torrico Ameller on August 30, 2004 (evidence file, volume X, annex 31 al Answering brief of the State, folios 3840 to 3854). 114 Cf. Order issued by the Second Criminal Chamber of the La Paz Superior Court of Justice on October 8, 2004 (evidence file, volume XIII, annex 1(d)) to the State’s final arguments, folio 4909). 115 Brief submitted by I.V. before the Trial Court of the province of Manco Kapac Copacabana on September 21, 2004 (evidence file, volume X, annex 32 al Answering brief of the State, folios 3857 to 3862). 116 Cf. Ruling No. 265/2004 issued by the Second Criminal Chamber of the La Paz Superior Court of Justice on October 22, 2004 (evidence file, volume VII, annex 37 to the submission of the case, folios 2232 to 2236). 117 Cf. Ruling No. 265/2004 issued by the Second Criminal Chamber of the La Paz Superior Court of Justice on October 22, 2004 (evidence file, volume VII, annex 37 to the submission of the case, folios 2232 to 2236). 118 119 Cf. Remedy of cassation file by I.V. before the Second Criminal Chamber of the District Superior Court on November 22, 2004 (evidence file, volume X, annex 34 al Answering brief of the State, folios 3873 to 3876). Order No. 3 issued by the First Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice on February 1, 2005 (evidence file, volume VII, annex 38 to the submission of the case, folios 2238 to 2239). 120 Cf. Return of the case to the Trial Court of Copacabana under a communication of February 24, 2005, received on April 29, 2005 (evidence file, volume VII, annex 39 to the submission of the case, folio 2241). 121 Cf. Remittal of original copies of the proceedings to the Sica Sica Trial Court under a communication of May 16, 2005, received on August 2, 2005 (evidence file, volume VII, annex 40 to the submission of the case, folio 2243). 122 Cf. Decision issued by the Sica Sica Trial Court on August 3, 2005 (evidence file, volume VII, annex 41 to the submission of the case, folio 2245). 123