104. On August 2, 2000, Ms. Andrade’s defense counsel filed a petition of habeas corpus against Alberto Costa Obregón, La Paz Third Criminal Examining Judge, based on the fact that the case had not been randomly assigned, and on the fact that the grounds set forth in articles 233 and 23430 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were not present at the time the alleged victim’s pre-trial detention was ordered.31 On August 5, 2000, the First Chamber of La Paz District Superior Court declared that the petition of habeas corpus was inadmissible based on the fact that the Judge against whom the petition was filed had acted, “in issuing the expanded order of detention” within the framework established by Article 233 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and on the fact that by asserting prejudicial claims (the petition asking that the court order for an investigation be revoked), Ms. Andrade Salmón had acknowledged the judge’s jurisdiction.32 Ms. Andrade Salmón appealed this decision.33 105. On August 8, 2000, Ms. Andrade’s defense counsel filed a petition seeking to have the order of pre-trial detention revoked. The petition was filed with the Third Criminal Examining Judge, and asked that he order an alternative to pre-trial detention, based on Article 240 of the Code of Criminal Procedure34 30 Article 234.- (Flight Risk). Flight risk shall be understood as any circumstance that allows one to reasonably infer that the accused will not stand trial but instead seek to evade justice. To determine whether a person accused of a crime poses a flight risk, the following factors shall be taken into special consideration: 1. The accused does not have his or her habitual domicile or residence, business or job in the country; 2. The accused has the means to leave the country or remain in hiding; 3. Evidence that the accused is making preparations to escape; 4. The accused’ behavior during the proceedings or in a previous proceeding, to the extent that said behavior suggests the accused’ determination not to stand trial; 5. The attitude that the accused voluntarily adopts with respect to the importance of the recoverable damages; 6. The fact that the person in question has been charged with the commission of another intentional criminal offense or has been sentenced to incarceration in a lower court ruling; 7. The fact that the person in question has been given an alternative outlet for an intentional criminal offense; 8. The fact that the accused is a repeat offender; 9. The fact that the accused is a member of criminal conspiracies or organized crime groups; 10. The accused poses a real danger to society or to the victim or to the plaintiff, and 11. Any other duly accredited circumstance that would give the court cause to reasonably believe that the accused is a flight risk. 31 Annex 22. Petition of habeas corpus that Maria Nina Lupe del Rosario Andrade de Salmón filed with the President and Members of the District Superior Court, dated August 1, 2000. Attachment to the petitioners’ brief of March 30, 2001. 32 Annex 6. Constitutional Court, Constitutional Judgment No. 814/00-R in Case 2000-01461-04-RHC. Attachment to the State’s brief of June 14, 2004. 33 Annex 6. Constitutional Court, Constitutional Judgment No. 814/00-R in Case 2000-01461-04-RHC. Attachment to the State’s brief of June 14, 2004. 34 Article 240 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - (Alternatives to Pre-trial detention): When pre-trial detention is not the proper precautionary measure but the risk of flight or obstruction of the proceedings exists, the judge or the court may issue a well-reasoned decision ordering the use of one or more of the following alternative measures: 1. Household arrest, either in the accused’ domicile or in another person’s, with no surveillance or with the surveillance ordered by the court. If the accused is unable to provide for his or her own financial needs or those of his or her family, or if he or she is indigent, the judge may authorize the person to be absent from the home during working hours; 2. Supervised release, where the accused must appear regularly before the judge, court or other designated authority; 3. Prohibiting the person concerned from leaving the country, the place in which he or she resides or the area prescribed by the judge or the court, without the court’s or judge’s authorization, and conveying said order to the competent authorities; 4. Designating certain places as off-limits for the accused; 5. Prohibiting the accused from speaking with certain persons, provided the accused’ right of defense is not adversely affected; and [continues …]