an economic bail of 40,000 bolivianos (some US$ 5,700 in current dollars). The Commission has not been informed by the parties when the foregoing precautionary measures were lifted. Nonetheless, the Commission understands that these measures were in place until December 15, 2011, the date on which charges against Ms. Andrade were dismissed with prejudice, i.e. for 10 years and 10 months. - In the Street Lamps case, the Second Criminal Chamber of the District Superior Court ordered the following precautionary measures on November 10, 2000 (which were carried out by Ms. Andrade on January 10, 2001): (1) appearance of the accused at the Court of origin on Saturdays at 9:00 a.m. to sign the record of attendance; (2) the prohibition on leaving the department and the country, where the court had to give official notice to the Bureau of Migration for the corresponding prohibition on leaving the court’s jurisdiction; (3) the presentation of two personal guarantors of the bail; and (4) the imposition of an economic measure that was set at Bs. 100,000. The Commission notes according to the facts proven that Ms. Andrade requested that the foregoing measures be modified in 2003. To date, the Commission has not been informed by the parties whether the foregoing measures were modified during the proceeding. Given that this case was reopened in 2011, the Commission considers that the foregoing measures have been in force to date, for more than 11 years. - In relation to the Guaglio case, the Commission has not been informed what precautionary measures to substitute for pre-trial detention were imposed on Ms. Andrade, or whether these were lifted at any time, thus it will not make any ruling in this respect. - In the Mendieta case, in March 2000 bail was set at 300,000 bolivianos, and it was decreed that Ms. Andrade was prohibited from leaving the court’s jurisdiction. Given that the amount of the bail was appealed by Ms. Andrade, the First Criminal Chamber of the District Superior Court set a bail of 150,000 bolivianos, which was substituted at Ms. Andrade’s request for a lot and a vehicle. On February 10, 2003, Ms. Andrade sought modification of the days when she had to go to the court, which was granted in a public hearing on March 20, 2003. Subsequently, on September 14 and November 23, 2004, Ms. Andrade asked that the precautionary measures be lifted; this request was rejected on September 30, 2005. Subsequently, on August 15, 2007, the Criminal Examining Judge decided ex oficio to lift the prohibition on leaving the court’s jurisdiction imposed on Ms. Andrade Salmón; that decision was appealed by the plaintiffs on August 23, 2007. Finally, on August 23, 2007, charges against Ms. Andrade were dismissed. The Commission has not been informed of the result of the appeal filed by the municipal government, when the dismissal of charges against Ms. Andrade became firm, or when the precautionary measures were lifted. - In the Mallasa case, on November 7, 2002, the Fourth Judge of Criminal Investigation ordered, as measures to substitute pre-trial detention: (1) the appearance of Ms. Andrade before the court on Saturdays at 9:30 a.m.; (2) the prohibition on her leaving the court’s jurisdiction; and (3) the presentation of a joint and several guarantor who would guarantee her presence throughout the proceeding. These measures were lifted on November 14, 2007, at the request of Ms. Andrade, with the exception of the prohibition on leaving the court’s jurisdiction, which as of November 4, 2008 was still in force. The Commission has not had access to the resolutions of November 7, 2002 and November 14, 2007, and has not been informed on what date charges against Ms. Andrade were preliminary dismissed, when it became firm, and when the order prohibiting her from leaving the court’s jurisdiction was lifted even though the parties have agreed that the dismissal of charges is firm. - In the Esin case, as appears in the part relating to the facts proven, the Commission was only informed that the defendants were free but under precautionary measures, thus the IACHR is unaware of when they were issued, what they entailed, and when the precautionary measures issued were lifted, accordingly it will not making any decision in that regard. 263. The Commission considers, taking into account the principle of the presumption of innocence, and following the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, that the guarantee established at Article 7(5) of the American Convention has as its purpose ensuring that the accused appear at the proceeding, and not reparation for harm caused. Accordingly, the amount established in the bail must be set primarily taking into account the assets of the person accused, as well as his or her relationship with the