held on precautionary measures.”55 On November 15, 2000, Ms. Andrade appealed the pre-trial detention order, on the grounds that the August 31, 2000 Constitutional Court Judgment which granted her a writ of habeas corpus had been disregarded.56 On December 1, 2000, on appeal the Second Criminal Chamber revoked the order of pre-trial detention and set bail at 300,000 bolivianos, rather than confirm the bail of 80,000 bolivianos ordered by the Superior Court, which had then been replaced to allow the alleged victim to put up a vehicle as bail.57 On December 2, 2000, Ms. Maria Nina Lupe del Rosario Andrade Salmón filed a petition of habeas corpus with the District Superior Court, concerning the bail set at 300,000 bolivianos, as she did not have that money.58 On December 4, 2000, the District Superior Court decided to give the petitioner 48 hours to correct the petition to conform to the requirements regarding justification of the petition,59 which was done on December 5, 2000.60 Also on December 4, 2000, the Seventh Criminal Examining Judge expanded the original order for investigation to add another 9 persons.61 On December 7, 2000, the First Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice denied the petition of habeas corpus filed.62 112. On December 14, 2000, Ms. Andrade’s defense counsel filed a petition to challenge the ruling of the First Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice, which had denied the petition of habeas corpus. Ms. Andrade’s petition argued that it had been reliably established, with credible evidence, that Ms. Andrade was unable to meet the bail set, given her assets. It argued that by setting bail so high, Article 241 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been violated.63 On January 16, 2001, the Constitutional Court delivered its ruling with regard to the petition of habeas corpus.64 In its ruling, the Constitutional Court held that the court that heard the petition of habeas corpus had not properly assessed the facts or the laws applicable in the present case. It therefore revoked the December 7, 2000 decision and ordered the court whose decision had been challenged to apply the alternatives that it deemed appropriate, “taking care not to order monetary bail that cannot be met.”65 In arriving at this decision, the Constitutional Court took the following into account: The petitioner is being prosecuted in a number of criminal cases in which she has demonstrated her willingness to stand trial and not to evade justice, as this Court recognized in its Judgment No. 814/00-R of August 31, 2000. Furthermore, it has been credibly shown 55 Annex 122. Pre-trial detention warrant issued by the Seventh Criminal Examining Judge, Constancio Alcón Paco, dated November 14, 2000. Attachments that the petitioners brought from Bolivia, February 2004; Annex 15. Decision No.339/03 of the Office of the Public Prosecutor of the Nation, Office of the La Paz District Attorney in Case No. 3870/03, Plaintiff: Office of the Vice Minister of Justice. Attachment to the State’s brief of May 2, 2003. Attachments brought from Bolivia, February 2004. 56 Annex 13. Brief addressed to the Judge of the Seventh Criminal Examining Court, date corrected, November 16, 2000. Attachment to the State’s brief of June 14, 2004. 57 Annex 19. Brief through which Ms. María Nina Lupe del Rosario Andrade Salmón filed a petition of habeas corpus with the Chief Judge and Judges of the District Superior Court. Attachment to the petitioners’ brief of May 11, 2011. 58 Annex 19. Brief through which Ms. María Nina Lupe del Rosario Andrade Salmón filed a petition of habeas corpus with the Chief Judge and Judges of the District Superior Court. Attachment to the petitioners’ brief of May 11, 2011. 59 Annex 64. District Superior Court, First Civil Chamber, Petition of habeas corpus, December 4, 2000. Attachment to the petitioners’ brief of March 30, 2001. 60 Annex 65. Brief that Maria Nina del Rosario Andrade Salmón addressed to the District Superior Court, “Presenting and Correcting Clarifications on the Petition of Habeas Corpus”, December 5, 2000. Attachment to the petitioners’ brief of March 30, 2001. 61 Annex 23. Decision No. 314/2000 of the Capital’s Seventh Criminal Examining Court in the preliminary proceedings prosecuted against the La Paz Mayor’s Office, Germán Monrroy Chazarreta and others for the crime of fraud and other crimes. Attachment to the State’s brief of June 14, 2004. 62 Annex 20. La Paz District Superior Court, First Civil Chamber, Petition of Habeas Corpus, December 7, 2000. Attachment to the petitioners’ brief of May 11, 2011. 63 Annex 20. La Paz District Superior Court, First Civil Chamber, Petition of Habeas Corpus, December 7, 2000. Attachment to the petitioners’ brief of May 11, 2011. 64 Annex 21. Constitutional Court. Constitutional Judgment No. 028/01-R of January 16, 2001, in case file 2000-01-1964-05-RUC. Attachment to the petitioners’ brief of May 11, 2001. 65 Annex 21. Constitutional Court. Constitutional Judgment No. 028/01-R, of January 16, 2001, in case file 2000-01-1964-05-RUC. Attachment to the petitioners’ brief of May 11, 2001.