271. In the instant case, the petitioners alleged that the State violated Articles 22(1), 22(2), and 22(3) of the American Convention to the detriment of Ms. Andrade Salmón on not having returned her passport to her, ordering her not to leave the court’s jurisdiction, and prohibiting her from travelling outside of La Paz, even though she had not been convicted of any offense. They further alleged that the violations of Article 22 of the convention stem from the violations of due process. They stated that for more than nine years, and in direct violation of the Bolivian laws regarding the imposition of precautionary measures in criminal cases, Ms. Andrade has not been able to move freely in Bolivia or leave the country at her discretion. 272. The State argued that the precautionary measure of being compelled not to leave the court’s jurisdiction could have been suspended temporarily if Ms. Andrade Salmón had so requested, and indicated for illustrative purposes that in the criminal proceeding known as Street Lamps, Ms. Andrade asked to leave the locality of Chumani for health reasons, which was granted in 2001 and, subsequently in that same year, when Ms. Andrade requested the provisional lifting of the order to stay within the court’s jurisdiction for work-related reasons, the judge granted that request. It also argued that the application of the measure requiring her not to leave the court’s jurisdiction was done in keeping with the perspective of proportionality, legitimacy, exceptionality, and temporality, as established in Article 240 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It indicated that it was not a final resolution, and that once applied the judge can authorize the accused, on an exceptional basis, to leave the country. 273. The Commission notes that Article 240 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for being required to remain within the court’s jurisdiction as a substitute measure for pre-trial detention and establishes that substitute measures shall be issued “when there is not a basis for pre-trial detention and there is a danger of flight or obstruction of the procedure,” for which the judge or court will issue a reasoned resolution. 274. The Commission notes that in the resolution adopted by the Seventh Criminal Examining Judge on February 6, 2001, in the Gader case, he imposed the measure requiring that Ms. Andrade not leave the court’s jurisdiction, as well as other precautionary measures, without establishing a basis as to why that measure was in order in the specific case. The Commission also notes that in the proceeding known as Street Lamps, the Second Criminal Chamber of the Superior District Court, in its resolution of November 10, 2000, did not establish the need to order a prohibition on her leaving the department based on the existence of circumstances that would lead one to presume a danger of flight. The Commission has referred previously in this report to the importance of the decisions that are adopted by domestic bodies that may affect human rights being duly reasoned, for otherwise they would be arbitrary decisions.304 Accordingly, the Commission concludes that a restriction was applied to Ms. Andrade’s right of movement and residence in the criminal proceedings against her in the cases known as Gader and Street Lamps did not comply with the requirements established in Article 240 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 275. The Commission notes, based on the lack of foundation of the resolutions of the authorities who issued the measures requiring that the alleged victim remain within the court’s jurisdiction, as well as the lack of arguments by the State with respect to the need to adopt and maintain this measure in the specific case for more than 10 years that in the Gader and Street Lamps cases the State did not comply with the principle of necessity. 276. As regards the requirement or proportionality, the Commission notes with respect to the gravity of the crime and the severity of the penalty that in the Gader case Ms. Andrade faced a penalty of up to eight years in prison, on having been accused of fraud, criminal association, and anti-economic conduct. In the Street Lamps case, Ms. Andrade, on having been accused of being an accomplice in the dereliction of duties, resolution against the Constitution and the laws, and improper use of influence, and mindful that the proceeding was reopened in 2010, could face up to approximately three years in prison. The Commission notes that the only proceeding in which Ms. Andrade has been convicted, and the conviction is firm (Guaglio 304 I/A Court H.R., Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182, para.78.