release be issued. They maintain that on December 11, 2000, the Constitutional Court granted Ms. Andrade a writ of habeas corpus and ordered the judge whose judgment was appealed to pay compensatory damages. The petitioners state that on January 19, 2001, the warrant for Ms. Andrade’s release was issued, which was almost two months after she had posted bail. 40. The petitioners allege that throughout the process, Ms. Andrade was prevented from exercising her right to defend herself and that the case lingered in the investigative phase for two years. They also make the point that the petitions and motions that Ms. Andrade filed went unanswered. According to the petitioners, on March 28, 2003 the prosecutor requested that all proceedings up to the original order for an investigation be declared null and void, based on the Constitutional Court’s ruling of March 31, 2003, which held that various co-defendants’ right of defense had been violated. 41. The petitioners add that on August 23, 2004 and January 21, 2005, the alleged victim requested that the criminal action be time barred. That request was denied on November 30, 2005, on the grounds that the complexity of the case and the filing of multiple motions and appeals by co-defendants had delayed the proceedings in the case. 42. In mid 2009, the petitioners reported that the court had provisionally dismissed the case against Ms. Andrade (in the lower court) and that the verdict had been sent up to the Criminal Chamber of the La Paz District Court for confirmation. The petitioners indicated that as happened in the Gader case, the dismissal was based on the lack of evidence against Ms. Andrade. They noted that the order not to leave the court’s jurisdiction was still in effect; as a result, Ms. Andrade was unable to leave either La Paz or the country. 43. In October 2010, the petitioners reported that although one year had passed since the verdict to dismiss the case against Ms. Andrade, the judge (liquidador) had refused to lift the precautionary measures (the order not to leave the court’s jurisdiction) because “the city government has made known its intention to reopen the case.” In September 2011, the petitioners reported that this case had been reopened. In February 2012, the petitioners reported that the case against Ms. Andrade had been dismissed and that they were waiting to see whether the verdict would be enforced or the La Paz Mayor’s Office would appeal. 4. The Mendieta Case (Villa Ayacucho) 44. The petitioners state that this case was brought against certain La Paz municipality authorities within the framework of compliance a 1994 Constitutional Court ruling that ordered that wooded areas be deeded over to certain persons (Mr. Mendieta among them) to compensate for the expropriation of some of their land; the authorities in question did not enforce the judgment. The petitioners point out that since the property owners whose land had been expropriated wanted the city to hand over the deeds to certain plots of land located in the Achumani area, Ayacucho sector of La Paz, they filed a complaint based on a request of the Prosecutor’s Office against various people in the Office of the City Mayor. The petitioners point out that Ms. Andrade was not mentioned in this complaint. 45. The petitioners stated that the Third Criminal Examining Court, which had included Ms. Andrade in the Gader case, also indicted her in this case as well on January 25, 2000, with a court order to investigate her for the crimes of contempt of court and decisions that contravene the Constitution and the law. They pointed out that the bail hearing was held on March 20, 2000, and Ms. Andrade was ordered to post bail of 300,000 bolivianos, which at a subsequent hearing held some days later was replaced by an order confining her to the court’s jurisdiction and bail of 150,000 bolivianos. The petitioners report that Ms. Andrade made her preliminary statement on April 26, 2000 and that between January 25, 2000 and June 2002, only one hearing was held; as a result, the case did not move beyond the investigative phase. 46. The petitioners maintain that despite the fact that on September 6, 2002, the Judge hearing the case agreed to go forward with a negotiated settlement between the parties (the Municipality of La Paz and the civil party), by September 2004 the settlement hearing that would put an end to the case had not yet been held.