vice in government and the breakdown of morality. It pointed out that for years, the The Mayor of La Paz’s Office endured corrupt administrations that drained the city’s coffers and bankrupted the city, with scandalous consequences. The State contends that the problems were ignored and were not deemed important enough to be investigated and punished with exemplariness. It also claims that everything done by the State in terms of investigation and evidence had but one purpose, which was to try to elucidate acts of corruption and sanction them accordingly. 62. The State maintains that Ms. Andrade is facing 6 criminal cases having to do with her time in office as a member of the city council and mayor in the period from 1996 to 2000. It notes that she brought a criminal case in the Bolivian courts seeking reparations for the harm allegedly done to her honor and dignity. The State recounted the reasons why the six criminal cases were brought against Ms. Andrade. It indicated that the above six cases, in which Ms. Andrade was named a co-defendant, do not stem from any single event; instead, they are the result of a number of related events involving alleged mismanagement of the Bolivian people’s monies. 63. In the Gader case, the State observed that in the wake of an irregular contracting process, on May 14, 1999 former Mayor Germán Monroy issued a Municipal Resolution under which he made an exception in order to retain the services of the firm GADER SRL for the sum of US$ 1,800,000 to prepare an integrated tax collection system. The State asserted that in communication No. 095/1999, the City Council ordered the Mayor “to terminate the contract and the payment corresponding to that commitment until the City Council takes a decision on the matter.” The State points out that the foregoing notwithstanding, Ms. Andrade Salmón, in her capacity as Mayor, ordered payment of the sum of US$ 1,070,000 to GADER SRL. 64. Regarding the Street Lamps case, the State asserted that according to the report prepared by the Citizen Participation and Decentralization Committee, dated February 11, 2000, Ms. Andrade, as President of the City Council, did not comply with the regulations that establish that a joint report of the legal and financial commissions should be adopted prior to discussion of the contract, which did not have the clearance from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of the Treasury either; she led other council members astray; she brought pressure to bear on members of the city council to vote in favor of the contract, and signed Municipal Ordinance No. 179/98 in which the agreement and contract were approved, despite the fact that the Council’s decision was to ask the executive branch to determine what law was applicable to the contract, and to have the debt listed with the Ministry of the Treasury. 65. Related to the Guaglio or Pension case, the State pointed out that on November 22, 1999, then Mayor Andrade Salmón made out a check in the amount of 696,816.17 bolivianos to the SERAMEC company, which had defrauded the Government of La Paz regarding payment of contributions to the city employees’ Pension Fund. In the Mallasa case, the State indicated that Ms. Andrade, who was aware that criminal acts had been committed involving Mallasa City Park, nevertheless failed to bring legal action against the City Mayor and failed to order the necessary investigations to identify who the responsible parties were. In the Esin case, the State observed that as President of the City Council, Ms. Andrade signed and put her rubric on a Municipal Ordinance approving the agreement signed between ESIN and the Government of La Paz, causing the City of La Paz an economic loss on the order of US$ 719,400. 66. The State argued that it had guaranteed Ms. Andrade’s right to a prompt and just legal process, in which constitutional remedies were invoked to repair the allegedly violations of her rights. Here, the State underscored the fact that the Constitutional Court acted promptly, effectively and impartially when it granted Ms. Andrade a writ of habeas corpus. The State alleged that the rulings delivered by Bolivia’s Constitutional Court on the alleged victim’s petition of habeas corpus ordered alternatives to pre-trial detention; they specifically ordered bail in lieu of pre-trial detention, which meant that for the court to order Ms. Andrade’s release, she had to post bail. The State alleged that inasmuch as Ms. Andrade did not comply with this procedural requirement, and the bail that she did offer to post was not the full amount ordered, her release was not immediately ordered. The State claimed that had the alleged victim requested release on her own recognizance under Article 242 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it may have been granted. To be granted release on her own recognizance she would have had to offer and produce proof of her own