4. Mendieta Case (Villa Ayacucho) 171. As background to this case, the record shows that by a resolution passed by the City Council of La Paz on December 13, 1994, the Government of La Paz awarded certain plots of land to seven persons. The plots were on lot 8 of block “Z” of the Ayachucho Urban Development Project in the Achumani zone and were awarded as compensation for land expropriated by that municipality.191 On October 21, 1997, the Supreme Court (Supreme Court Order No. 231/97) confirmed a writ of constitutional amparo granted by the Supreme Court (Constitutional Amparo No. 305/96) which confirmed the writ of constitutional amparo that the La Paz District Supreme Court had granted (Constitutional Amparo 305/96) in the case that the seven persons brought against Ronal McLean Avaroa, The Mayor of La Paz at the time.192 Under the writ of constitutional amparo granted in 1997, the City Mayor was required to give these 7 persons “level grading of the plots within block “Z” of Villa Ayacucho in the Achumani Zone of La Paz”, which an official in the Mayor’s Office did not do; as a result, these 7 people filed a complaint against the official in the Mayor’s Office for contempt of court orders.193 172. In the statements he made to the police, the official in question said that he had not complied with the writ of constitutional amparo because on November 25, 1997, Municipal Ordinance No. 250/97 was issued, Article 1 of which ordered compliance with the Supreme Court’s writ of constitutional amparo of October 21, 1997; Article 6 of the ordinance declared that area to be a “green zone” for reasons of necessity and public utility. He stated that later, on November 25, 1998, another ordinance (No. 151/98) was issued that confirmed the designation of the wooded area as a “green zone”; this ordinance was signed by Ms. Lupe Andrade Salmón in her capacity as President of the City Council of La Paz. On May 13, 1999, another ordinance (No. 032/99) was issued in which the previous ordinance was confirmed.194 173. On January 25, 2000, the order instituting preliminary proceedings was issued and named Ms. Andrade Salmón and others as suspects in the crime of contempt of decisions delivered in Habeas Corpus and Constitutional Amparo Proceedings (Article 179 bis of the Penal Code195) and in the crime of decisions that contravene the Constitution and the law (Article 153 of the Penal Code).196 Ms. Andrade Salmón appealed the judge’s initial investigation decision, citing Article 169 of the Penal Code. She argued that the prejudicial question was the lack of jurisdiction of the judge against whom the appeal was filed; on the other hand, the preliminary issue was the absence of any criminal conduct and the lack of a justiciable matter. Her appeal was denied, so that the order was given to take her preliminary statement.197 On February 27, 2000, Ms. Andrade Salmón filed a petition of Habeas Corpus against La Paz’ Third Criminal Examining Court on the grounds that she was being unduly and illegally prosecuted for the alleged crimes of contempt of decisions delivered in habeas corpus and constitutional amparo proceedings, which she was alleged to have committed when she was serving as President of the City Council and then as The Mayor of La Paz.198 191 Annex 79. National Police Force, Office of the Departmental Director, Judicial Police, Report on the findings of the judicial police inquiries, case no. 05776/98 of December 17, 1999. 192 Annex 78. Report No. 013/2003 of the Third Criminal Examining Judge (Liquidador) to the Dean Serving as President of the District Superior Court, May 14, 2003. Attachment to the State’s brief of June 18, 2003. 193 Annex 78. Annex 78. Report No. 013/2003 of the Third Criminal Examining Judge (Liquidador) to the Dean Serving as President of the District Superior Court, May 14, 2003. Annex to the State’s brief of June 18, 2003. 194 Annex 78. Annex 78. Report No. 013/2003 of the Third Criminal Examining Judge (Liquidador) to the Dean Serving as President of the President of the District Superior Court, May 14, 2003. Annex to the State’s brief of June 18, 2003. 195 Under this article, the authorities and private citizens have an obligation to comply with the judges and the courts. If not, they will be prosecuted for contempt of court. Constitutional Court Judgment No. 282/00 holds that where a common crime is involved, the “jurisdiction of privilege” does not apply, based on the procedure established in Article 265 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 196 Annex 80. Decision No. 43/2000 of the Third Criminal Examining Court, dated January 25, 2000. Attachment to the State’s brief of June 14, 2004. 197 Annex 81. Constitutional Court Judgment No. 282/00-R of March 27, 2000. Attachment to the petitioners’ brief of September 23, 2004. 198 Annex 81. Constitutional Court Judgment No. 282/00-R of March 27, 2000. Attachment to the petitioners’ brief of September 23, 2004.