able to continue to enjoy her property and if she is acquitted she may again be able to dispose of her assets. Concerning the alleged violation of the right to freedom of movement, the State claimed that any person being prosecuted faces a number of restrictions on his or her freedom of movement, and the free disposition of his or assets. These restrictions are allowed under the law, must be applied by the competent authority and must be performed in accordance with the legal requirements. The state alleged that in the criminal proceedings instituted against Ms. Andrade, it was a judge who ordered the precautionary measure confining her to the court’s jurisdiction, as she was a defendant in a criminal case instituted on the basis of elements suggesting culpability. 77. The State claimed that the petitioners allegations’ are vague, as they fail to explain the bases of their allegations and do not indicate what amounts or bank accounts were frozen, or how long access was denied to create a bank account in the alleged victim’s name. The State alleged that it did not violate Article 21 of the Convention to the detriment of Ms. Andrade, since she has always been able to own personal and immovable property, subject to registration and with the limitations established under Bolivian law, as the American Convention provides: “[…]The law may subordinate such use and enjoyment to the interest of society”, and specifically where the property of the State is concerned. The State alleged that at no time did state agents take any measure to unlawfully expropriate or appropriate Ms. Andrade’s assets, and she has certainly never been denied exercise of those rights. 78. The State maintained that the provisional measure ordered in the criminal cases brought against Ms. Andrade, requiring her to post bail either in the form of cash or property, cannot be deemed to be unreasonable and incompatible with the spirit of Article 21 of the American Convention. The State argued that bail posted in the form of money or property is provided for in the Code of Criminal Procedure, not as a penalty that depends on the degree of the accused’ criminal liability; instead the type and amount of the bail are determined by factoring in the elements indicated in articles 240, 241 and 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which are related to the aims of the process. Here, the State pointed out that one of the factors weighed by the courts concerns the “procedural risks”, in other words, the flight risk and risk of obstruction of the investigation and prosecution of the criminal case. The State reasoned, therefore, that the primary purpose of bail in the form of money is to ensure that the person being prosecuted will not attempt to elude justice. 79. The State alleged that the precautionary measure of posting bail, as established in Bolivian law, is in keeping with the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, which has written that: […]The guarantee provided for by that Article (art. 5-3) is designed to ensure not the reparation of loss but rather the presence of the accused at the hearing. Its amount must therefore be assessed principally by reference to him, his assets and his relationship with the persons who are to provide the security, in other words to the degree of confidence that is possible that the prospect of loss of the security or of action against the guarantors in case of his non-appearance at the trial will act as a sufficient deterrent to dispel any wish on his part to abscond.7 80. Furthermore, the State maintained that a court order imposing a precautionary measure is not a final order. It indicated that in the present case, under Article 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, bail can and could be entirely revoked, as the alleged victim herself recognized by filing the respective remedies to have the bail ordered in her specific case either lowered or replaced by an alternative measure. 81. The State pointed out that as the constitutional precedents established by Bolivia’s Constitutional Court held, “while Article 241 of Law No. 1970 provides that the sole purpose of bail is to ensure that a defendant will meet the obligations imposed, and must be assessed by reference to the defendant’s assets, it is also true that a defendant must present information and evidence to enable the judge 7 The State is citing the judgments of the ECHR in the case of Neumeister v. Austria of June 27, 1968, paragraph 14, and in the case of Iwañczuck v. Poland, paragraph 66.