against her,6 on October 3, 2000 the Ninth Criminal Examining Judge ordered that preliminary proceedings against Mrs. Andrade be instituted for “abuse of influence”, “decisions contrary to the Constitution and the law” and “dereliction of duty.” 23. According to the petitioners, on October 17, 2000, the alleged victim’s preventive detention was ordered; they further allege that at the respective hearing, she was denied assistance of her defense counsels, whom the presiding judge threatened to expel from the courtroom. The petitioner report that on October 25, 2000, Mrs. Andrade filed a petition of habeas corpus which the First Civil Chamber of the La Paz District Superior Court dismissed as out of order. They add, however, that by a resolution dated November 10, 2000, the Second Criminal Chamber of the District Superior Court revoked the order of preventive detention and ordered alternative measures instead. According to information supplied by the petitioners, the final verdict in this case has not been delivered. The petitioners argue that throughout the proceeding the alleged victim was denied the opportunity to exercise her right of defense. By way of example they cite the fact that the final writ instituting preliminary proceedings, dated December 11, 2002, included a criminal offense that was not mentioned in the original order instituting preliminary proceedings. 24. The petitioners observe further that on August 23, 2004 and January 21, 2005, the alleged victim filed a motion to have the criminal case time-barred. The Second District Receiving Court for Preliminary Criminal Proceedings denied her motion on November 30, 2005, arguing that the complexity of the case and the multiple petitions the co-defendants had filed seeking release delayed the proceedings in the case. 4. The Mendieta Case (Villa Ayacucho) 25. The petitioners state that this case was brought against certain La Paz officials who, in the course of enforcing a constitutional writ ordering the deeding of wooded areas as a means to compensate for expropriation, handed over other lands of equal value. The petitioners emphasize that at the time of these events, Mrs. Andrade was neither a government official nor a member of the city council, and hence was not involved in any of the events at the heart of this case. 26. The petitioners state that on January 25, 2000, the Third Criminal Examining Court, which had included Mrs. Andrade in the Gader case, nonetheless included her name among the defendants in the order instituting preliminary proceedings. The crimes charged were “contempt of court” and “decisions that contravene the Constitution and the law.” The petitioners note that although that court ordered that she be taken into custody, she was granted provisional release and alternative measures were ordered. The information supplied by the petitioners indicates that a settlement of this case is currently being worked out between the Municipality of La Paz and the civil party to the case, and that the hearing that would close this case has still not been held. 5. The Mallasa Case 27. According to the petitioners, this case concerns the allegedly unlawful sale of land in the Mallasa National Park by a former Mayor of La Paz and other officials. The petitioners contend that on January 26, 2001, the Municipal Mayor of the City of La Paz filed a complaint against Mrs. Andrade claiming that she had failed to take legal action and was therefore derelict in her duty. The petitioners report that, as alternatives to incarceration, the judge hearing the case ordered that Mrs. Andrade put up bond, that she submit to a supervised release arrangement requiring weekly check-ins, and that she be confined to the jurisdiction of the court. 28. According to the petitioners, on September 8, 2003, the Fifth Receiving Court for Preliminary Criminal Proceedings issued the final investigating court writ and ordered provisional dismissal of the case against Mrs. Andrade on the grounds that there was no cause to suspect that the The petitioners state that none of the defendants accused Mrs. Andrade; they also note that the investigations conducted by the District Attorney, the PTJ and the audit by the Comptroller General of the Republic uncovered no suggestion of wrongdoing on the alleged victim’s part. 6 5