indigence. The State therefore alleged that the domestic legal system had offered alternative mechanisms of which Ms. Andrade could have availed herself, such as release on one’s personal recognizance. 67. The State also indicated that as a consequence of the measures taken and the complaint that the Vice Minister of Justice filed with the Attorney General of the Republic, an investigation was launched into the cases that the alleged victim brought in the domestic courts against judges Constancio Alcon Paco, Rolando Sarmiento and former judge Alberto Costa Obregón. It reported that the prosecution assigned to investigate had opened case 3870/03 against the aforementioned judges, for the alleged crimes of deprivation of freedom, decisions that contravene the Constitution and the laws, and failure to comply with writs of habeas corpus and constitutional amparo. The State reported that formal charges were brought on November 27, 2003. 68. The State alleged that in the present case, Ms. Andrade’s human rights were not violated. The State maintained that Ms. Andrade’s rights and freedoms were respected, as she was prosecuted in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and relevant procedural laws; as the Constitution requires, it was the Judicial Branch that prosecuted and decided the criminal cases brought against Ms. Andrade. It also observed that in the instant case, the principle of presumption of innocence has been observed, since Ms. Andrade is not currently in custody, even though a conviction has been handed down against her. It points out that in the Pensions case, the lower court convicted Ms. Andrade of mismanagement of public resources and sentenced her to 3 years in prison, a sentence that has never been enforced. As for the alleged violation of Ms. Andrade’s honor and dignity, the State argued that she has never been told anything but the truth and that criminal proceedings were instituted in these cases on the basis of reports prepared by the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic in some cases, whereas in others, the provisions set forth in Article 34 of Law No. 1178 on Government Oversight were invoked, as was Article 30 of Supreme Decree No. 23318, on Responsibility in Public Office. Concerning the alleged violation of the right to property, the State observed that any criminal proceeding involves two actions: 1) a criminal action to impose a sentence of imprisonment, and 2) a civil action to redress the harm done. 69. The State maintained that because Ms. Andrade was one of many co-defendants in the various cases prosecuted against her, there were delays. However, it argued, the alleged victim had legal remedies available to her to correct this situation. 70. In its observations on the merits, and specifically with reference to the alleged violation of articles 7 and 25 of the American Convention, the State pointed out that Article 9 of the 1994 Constitution recognizes the right to physical freedom, which is guaranteed under Article 9 of the Constitution. That right, the State observed, may only be restricted by way of exception: 1) in the cases and in the manners prescribed by law; 2) by order of a competent authority, and 3) by a warrant issued in writing. 71. The State also pointed out that Article 22 of the Constitution now in force expressly recognizes that the dignity and liberty of the person are inviolate. The State also observed that Article 1(II) of Law No. 1836 of April 1, 1998 (Constitutional Court Act) states that one of the Constitutional Court’s essential purposes is to ensure respect for and exercise of the basic constitutional rights of persons subject to its jurisdiction. The Constitutional Court devoted priority attention to the protection of Ms. Andrade’s human rights through its rulings on the petitions of habeas corpus she filed against court decisions which were considered as improper and illegal. Therefore, the State alleged, the Constitutional Court gave practical effect to the above basic constitutional and guarantees in the rulings it delivered in her favor. The State thus observed articles 7(6) and 25(1) of the American Convention. 72. The State reported that through the constitutional procedures, action was taken on the request seeking reparations for any damages caused, as the Constitutional Court admitted an incidental complaint for assessment of damages for Ms. Andrade as part of the petitions of habeas corpus, as follows from the Constitutional Court’s ruling No. 1160-R of December 11, 2000. The State indicated that given the above described laws, Ms. Andrade could have pursued an incidental complaint for assessment of damages and injuries in the other criminal cases in which the alleged victim believed that her right to personal liberty was somehow violated, and seek reparations and/or damages via this avenue. Therefore, the State believes