January 28, 2004 at trial, and sentencing Ms. Andrade to three years in prison for dereliction of duties; at preset that sentence is suspended. 304. The Commission observes that according to the facts proven the criminal proceeding included several defendants (approximately 19) and from the handing down of the guilty verdict in first instance on January 28, 2004, until the judgment was firm (October 27, 2011), seven years elapsed, during which the action of extinction of the criminal action filed by Ms. Andrade and other co-accused was resolved in 2005, and the appeal filed against the judgment by Ms. Andrade and by the Public Prosecutor’s Office in 2006. Nonetheless, the State has not presented any type of information that explains why the Supreme Court took almost five years to rule on the motions for cassation and annulment filed by approximately 18 of those found guilty (which included Ms. Andrade, who had been acquitted on appeal in 2006). 305. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that in the instant case there was a violation of the right to be tried in a reasonable time enshrined in Article 8(1) of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument to the detriment of Ms. Andrade Salmón. 4. Mendieta Case 306. In the criminal proceeding known as Mendieta, the first procedural act against Ms. Andrade Salmón was on January 25, 2000, when the judge’s decision to open an investigation was handed down against her and against other persons. The Commission has not been informed by the parties when exactly the final and firm judgment was handed down, although both parties confirmed that the case was closed. As a result, the Commission considers that it does not have the information necessary to be able to analyze whether the proceeding did or did not unfold in a reasonable time. 5. Mallasa Case 307. In this case, the first procedural act against Ms. Andrade occurred on January 29, 2001, when criminal proceedings against her and against 35 others were instituted. The Commission is unaware when the final and firm judgment was handed down, although the petitioners indicated in February 2012 that charges against Ms. Andrade Salmón had been dismissed and that as it was not reopened, it was a firm decision. Accordingly, the Commission considers that it does not have the information necessary to be able to analyze whether the process unfolded in a reasonable time. 6. Esin Case 308. In the Esin case, the first procedural act against Ms. Andrade occurred on May 10, 2002, when the First Criminal Examining Judge of the Superior District Court of La Paz instituted criminal proceedings against Ms. Andrade and four other officials of the municipal government. The Commission has not been informed when the final and firm judgment was handed down, although the petitioners reported in February 2012 that the case was closed and firm after the accusation against Ms. Andrade was rejected. Nonetheless, the petitioners did not inform the IACHR when the case was closed or the reasons the accusation was dismissed. Accordingly, the Commission considers that it does not have the information necessary for being able to analyze whether the proceeding unfolded in a reasonable time. 309. The Commission observes that in the cases known as Gader, Street Lamps, and Guaglio, the criminal proceeding lasted approximately 11 years, in the face of the possibility of being sentenced to eight years in the Gader case, three years in the Street Lamps case, and in the Guaglio she was ultimately convicted and sentenced to a term of three years, which is currently a suspended sentence. In addition, the Commission notes in relation to the Gader and Street Lamps cases that the impact of the precautionary measures associated with these criminal proceedings have violated Article 7(5) of the Convention in relation to Articles 21, 22, and 1(1) of the same instrument to the detriment of Ms. Andrade Salmón. In this respect, the Commission recalls that it is the state that has the obligation to give impetus to a criminal proceeding, not the persons indicted. The Commission observes that the multiplicity of proceedings with a duration of more than a decade have had a significant impact on Ms. Andrade’s life. While the State has the duty to enforce the law