116. On January 21, 2004, all the proceedings up through the final instruction decision (Decision No. 09/04) were declared null and void, whereupon the Sixth Criminal Trial Court (Liquidador) returned the case files to Judge Orlando Blacutt of the Eight Criminal Examining Court of La Paz, who recused himself based on the fact that one of the co-defendants had been making assertions against him; the case then went to Judge Rolando Sarmiento Torrez of the Ninth Criminal Examining Court, who also recused himself on the grounds that the Government of La Paz had filed a complaint against him with the Council of the Judiciary, La Paz District, for negligence in processing the case, whereupon the case finally went to the First Criminal Examining Court.75 117. On February 17, 2004, the First Criminal Examining Judge recused himself from further consideration of the case based on two demands for his recusal filed by two co-defendants, whereupon the case was sent to the Second Criminal Examining Court, which also recused itself in the wake of a motion filed by one of the co-defendants demanding that the court recuse itself; the case was then referred to the Third Criminal Examining Judge, who also declined to hear the case in an order of March 24, 2004, given the mutual enmity that existed between himself and the civil party.76 The case then went to Judge Jaqueline Rada Arana with the Fifth Criminal Examining Court, who was challenged by the Government of La Paz on the grounds that she had presided over another case in which the City Government was a plaintiff (the Mallasa case); the case then went to the Sixth Criminal Examining Court and then to the Eighth Criminal Examining Judge legally substituting for the Ninth Criminal Examining Court. The Eighth Criminal Examining Judge disqualified himself, whereupon the case went to the Third Criminal Examining Court.77 Judge Rolando Sarmiento of the Third Criminal Examining Court confirmed the final instruction decision, and referred the case by random selection to the Fourth Criminal Examining Court of El Alto78 in December 2004.79 118. While the competent court to hear the case was being determined, on September 16, 2004 Ms. Andrade petitioned the Third Criminal Examining Judge (Liquidador) to have the criminal case timebarred, to order the record closed and declare the precautionary measures ordered against her time-barred. Her argument was that more than five years had passed since the start of the criminal case and, under the law in force at that time,80 criminal cases could not continue for more than 5 years.81 On August 13, 2005, the Fourth Criminal Examining Court of El Alto denied the petition to have the criminal action time-barred, based on Constitutional Court Judgment No. 101/2004 of September 14, 2004, and Constitutional Court Order No. 0079/04-ECA of September 29, 2004, which mandate the judge to determine whether the delay in justice was the fault of the Public Prosecutor’s Office and/or the court, in which event the case should be declared timebarred. They also indicated that time-barring would not be applicable if the delay was caused by the action of the accused or defendant by abusing the use of the means of defense and/or a lack of diligence in her/his participation in the process, in a blatant refusal to subject her/him to the court’s jurisdiction and competence. The Fourth Examining Court concluded that the case had started on March 23, 2000 and had been underway 75 Annex 28. Fourth Criminal Examining Court of El Alto. Report, El Alto, June 3, 2005. Attachment to the petitioners’ brief of March 26, 2006. 76 Annex 28. Fourth Criminal Examining Court of El Alto. Report, El Alto, June 3, 2005. Attachment to the petitioners’ brief of March 26, 2006. 77 Annex 28. Fourth Criminal Examining Court of El Alto. Report, El Alto, June 3, 2005. Attachment to the petitioners’ brief of March 26, 2006. 78 Annex 28. Fourth Criminal Examining Court of El Alto. Report, El Alto, June 3, 2005. Attachment to the petitioners’ brief of March 26, 2006. 79 Annex 27. Report addressed to Dr. Ricardo Alarcón Pozo, President of the La Paz District Court, May 26, 2006. Attachment to the State’s brief of July 20, 2006. 80 81 They asserted Article Three from the Final Section on Transitory Provisions of the 1970 Law. Annex 29. Decision No. 05/2005, Fourth Criminal Examining Court of El Alto, The Mayor of La Paz’s Office v. Germán Monrroy Chazarreta et al. for fraud and other crimes. Reasoned order, El Alto de La Paz, August 13, 2005. Attachment to the petitioners’ brief of August 2, 2006.