12. He alleges that during the events described above, the Ticona brothers were not informed of the reasons for their arrest and not notified of any charges against them. Neither were they brought before a competent judge immediately after their arrest. 13. As for investigations undertaken by the domestic judicial system, he indicates that an investigation was initiated on April 7, 1983, and that despite the fact that 22 years have gone by, the criminal proceedings have not led to a lower court ruling in the matter, much less a final judgment. 14. Summarizing the criminal proceedings, the petitioner reported that on April 7, 1983, the National Commission for Investigation of Forced Disappearances of Citizens filed a criminal complaint with the Ministerio Público [Justice Department], to initiate an investigation into the events related to the forced disappearance of Renato Ticona Estrada. On February 18, 1983, the National Commission for Investigation of Disappeared Citizens filed criminal charges against Roberto Melean, Willy Valdivia Gumucio, René Veizaga Vargas, and Gumersindo Espinoza Valdivieso. On February 28, 1985, Honoria Estrada de Ticona and Hugo Ticona Estrada filed criminal charges against Gumersindo Espinoza Valdivieso and the partners in crime, accusing them of the “crime of political disappearance on presumption of murder of their next of kin, Renato Ticona Estrada.” 15. The petitioner reports that on July 4, 1983, the Third Judge for Preliminary Criminal Proceedings in La Paz opened preliminary criminal proceedings against Roberto Melean, Willy Valdivia Gumucio, René Veizaga Vargas, and Gumersindo Espinoza Valdivieso, because he determined that the reported acts were covered by punishment stipulated in various articles of the Criminal Code. 16. The petitioner indicates that on February 1, 1984, Gumersindo Espinoza Valdivieso was arrested in the city of Oruro and taken to the Third Court of Preliminary Criminal Proceedings of La Paz, where he presented his signed statement on February 6. The petitioner reports that despite the arrest warrants issued by the judge for the case, the other persons charged, Roberto Melean, Willy Valdivia Gumucio, and René Veizaga Vargas, never appeared to present their declarations. On May 6, 1985, the judge notified, cited, and summoned the other persons charged to appear, but they never either presented themselves to the court or were detained. On June 11, 1985, at the request of Gumersindo Espinoza, the judge for the case issued a decision granting temporary release [libertad provisional]. However that decision was revoked by the Second Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of La Paz on June 17, 1985. 17. On July 5, 1985, Gumersindo Espinoza filed a motion for dismissal based on lack of a legal definition of the crime, which was declared in order on September 2, 1985. The defendant’s case was dismissed and the case records were closed in his favor.4 The petitioner reported, and the State confirmed in records it provided, that the proceedings initiated against the alleged perpetrators of the forced disappearance of Renato Ticona were closed in the first quarter of 1986.5 18. The petitioner alleges that in crimes against public order as in this case, the Ministerio Público had (and has) the obligation to act promptly, on its own initiative, to ensure that proceedings take place without delay.6 He reports that the Ministerio Publico allowed the case to remain completely inactive for 20 years. The petitioner claims that the case was just reactivated in 2005, as a result of a complaint made by the Ombudsman to the Inter-American 4 Resolution No. 089/85 of the Third Court of Preliminary Criminal Proceedings of La Paz, Bolivia. Communication dated March 8, 2005 from the Ministerio Publico to the President of the Superior Court of Justice of the District of La Paz, where the case records were filed. 6 Article 5 of the former CPP in force at the time the events occurred states as follows: “[C]riminal action arises out of public law … for crimes prosecuted by the Ministerio Público, without prejudice to private complaints or accusations;” likewise, Art. 8 establish that “criminal action cannot be waived when it is brought by the ministerio público. Discontinuance or abandonment of a case by the victims neither stops nor interrupts criminal action under public law;” and, Art. 46 states that “it is the responsibility of prosecutors in criminal matters … to promote and bring criminal action in crimes under public law, without relying on a complaint on the part of the victim; to monitor and control the proceedings as they occur by appearing in the offices in question and proposing the measures required to ensure that they are expeditious and are completed, and to verify serious complaints and ensure the prosecution of judges or public officials for crimes committed in the performance of their duties.” 5 3