59 “dilatory and obstructionist” effects, the 59 abstentions before mentioned did cause a delay of approximately 310 days, that is to say, almost 11 months, which, according to the Court, is a notable period of delay given that, during that time, the proceeding was brought to a halt. 181. Hence, apart from the foregoing, the Tribunal deems that it is appropriate also to analyze the general phenomena that represent the filing of approximately 111 abstentions in just one criminal proceeding. Specifically, the Court requested the State to present, to facilitate adjudication of the case, general information related to the domestic processing of the abstentions filed by the judges as well as the legal provisions applicable to this issue. In its final written arguments, the State referred to the provisions applicable to the criminal proceeding, which corresponds to an old Criminal Code, and explained that the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1972, together with the Ley de Abreviación Civil y de Asistencia Familiar (Law To Shorten Periods in Civil Proceedings and Family Assistance) (Law 1760) of February 28, 1997, were applicable. District of Santa Cruz (volume 8, folios 4783, 4785 and 4796). These abstentions referred to the presentation of a remedy of appeal againts an order the rejected a request of expansion of the initial order of investigaion of June 1, 2002. d) From October 19 to 30, 2004, 3 Members of the First Criminal Chamber and 3 Members of the Second Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of the District of Santa Cruz abstained from solving 3 appeal remedies filed by Rebeca Ibsen Castro, among others, on September 9, 2004, against an order of the Ninth First Instance Criminal Judge of Santa Cruz of September 8, 2004, that annuled an order of forman detentione previously ordered by the Judge of the Province or Warnes against one of the accused and, instead, [the Ninth First Instance Criminal Judge of Santa Cruz] ordered to maintain the precautionary measures previously ordered by another judge with some modifications (volume 15, folios 7023, 7029, 7124 and 7125). e) From October 19 to 30, 2004, 3 Members of the First Criminal Chamber and 3 Members of the Second Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of District of Santa Cruz abstained. These abstentions were filed regarding a remedy of appeal filed by Rebeca Ibsen Castro on September 9, 2004, against an order of Ninth First Instance Criminal Judge of the Capital Santa Cruz issued on September 7, 2004, that maintained the substitute measures to detention declared and the amount of the bail imposed to each one of the accused (volume 15, folios 7124 to 7125 and 7239, 7243). f) From October 19 to 30, 2004 3 Members of the First Criminal Chamber and 3 Members of the Second Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of District of Santa Cruz abstaind from solving the remedies of appeal filed by the accused and Rebeca Ibsen Castro against the order of prosecution issued on June 7, 2004, by the First Instance Judge of Warnes (volume 20, folios 8461, 8467, 8473 to 8474). g) From October 21 to November 4, 2004 6 abstentions were filed in total by 3 Members of the First Criminal Chamber and 3 Members of the Second Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of District of Santa Cruz (volume 15, folios 7014, 7015, 7023 and 7029). These abstentions were filed regarding two remedies of appeal filed by Rebeca Ibsen Castro, among other, on September 4, 2004 against the order of the Ninth First Instance Criminal Judge of the Capital Santa Cruz issued on September 1, 2004, that annuled an order of formal detention issued by the Judge of the Province of Warnes against one of the accused, instead [the Ninth First Instance Criminal Judge of the Capital Santa Cruz] ordered the subsistence of an precautionary measures order previously issued. h) From November 12 to 22, 2004, 3 Members of the First Criminal Chamber and 3 Members of the Second Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of District of Santa Cruz abstained from solving a remedy of appeal file by one of the accused against a decision of the Ninth First Instance Criminal Judge issued on October 25, 2004, that rejected a request of cessation of a preventive detention previously declared (volume 19, folios 8072, 8078 and 8089). i) On February 25, 2005, 3 Members of the First Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of District abstained from solving an elevation to consultation on the lawfulness of some of the abstentions, which was filed by the First First Instance Civil Judge of the Capital before the Superior Court of District of Santa Cruz (volume 18, folio 7800). j) From August 17 to October 28, 2005 8 abstentions were filed by 3 Members of the Second Criminal Chamber, 2 Members of the Social Administrative Chamber and 3 co-judges of the Superior Court of District, respectively (appendixes to the answer to the application, volume 28, folios 19823, 19832, 19835, 19837 and 19841). These abstentions were filed regarding a remedy of appeal for legal protection filed by the accused against the ruling of April 18, 2005, of the First Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Santa Cruz that reversed an order of extinction of the criminal action on January 19, 2005. k) From July 4 to 28, 2007, 3 abstentions were filed by Members of the First Criminal Chamber and 3 Members of the Second Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of District of Santa Cruz (volume 24, folios 9807 and 9809). These abstentions were filed regarding a remedy of appeal filed by Mrs. Rebeca Ibsen Castro, among other, on June 18, 2007 agains the ruling of the Seventh First Instance Civil and Commercial Judge on June 15, 2007, that ordered the del Juez Séptimo de Partido en Materia Civil y Comercial de 15 de junio de 2007 that ordered the cessationf of the preventive detention of one of the accused.