addition, it was ordered94 that the parties to the proceedings not be present, including the accused and his defense, during Brisa's statement.95 58. On March 20, 2003, the complainant requested the reading at hearing of the medical certificate dated July 31, 2002, issued by Dr. M.R.C. However, the defense requested the exclusion of evidence, under Article 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, because it was issued before the complaint of August 1, 2001, was made and because it was not made at the request of the Public Prosecutor's Office, but at the request of DCI. After evaluating the arguments of the parties, the President of the Court decided that the forensic medical certificate could not be incorporated into the trial because it required a prior request from the Public Prosecution. Despite this, the expert was allowed to make oral statements.96 59. In this first trial, a total of eight hearings were held with a duration of between 1 hour and 45 minutes to 7 hours and 25 minutes, and with testimony from E.G.A., Brisa, José Miguel De Angulo, Luz Stella Losada, five prosecution witnesses, nine defense witnesses, six experts from the complainants and/or the Public Prosecutor’s Office, and two experts from the defense.97 60. On March 28, 2003, Sentencing Court No. 4 unanimously decided that the accused was the perpetrator of the crime of aggravated statutory rape,98 in accordance with Articles 309 and 310, subparagraph 3 of the Criminal Code, sentencing him to seven years of imprisonment. Among the reasons for the ruling, the aforementioned Court noted that “deceptive psychological manipulations have undermined the volition of the minor Brisa […] to resist the sexual abuse to which she was subjected.” The Court considered that, in the case, the elements of the criminal offense of rape were not established since “it had not been convincingly demonstrated that the element of 'physical violence' had occurred in the successive sexual abuses” and nor was intimidation “indubitably” demonstrated. Similarly, the Court claimed to have glimpsed “certain personality traits of […] Brisa,” such as her “strong personality,” from which “it is not possible to conceive that Brisa has been intimidated by [the accused].”99 61. On April 14, 2003, the complainants and the accused appealed the sentence.100. On June 5, 2003, the First Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Cochabamba (hereinafter “First Criminal Chamber”) annulled said sentence in its entirety because an irremediable procedural defect had been committed when receiving the statement of the alleged victim in private 94 Sentencing Court No. 4 ordered that Brisa's testimony be carried out in private with the help of family members or a psychologist and that all the acts of the oral trial be carried out in a confidential manner. Cf. Record of oral trial hearing from March 17 to 25, 2003 (evidence file, folios 7618, 7629 and 7630); Judgment issued by the Sentencing Court No. 4, supra (evidence file, folio 7664); Record of hearing of oral reasoning for a restricted appeal issued by the First Criminal Chamber on May 13, 2003 (evidence file, folio 9715); Order issued by the Third Chamber of the Superior Court of the Judicial District of Cochabamba on December 2, 2003 (evidence file, folio 9750), and Judgment issued by the Second Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice on April 2, 2004 (evidence file, folio 9801). Brisa reported that during her statement a psychologist, whom she did not know, was assigned to accompany her. She also stated that, during her testimony, two of the judges fell asleep and one of them asked if she screamed when she suffered sexual violence. Cf. Letter signed by Brisa De Angulo Losada, supra (evidence file, folios 7251 to 7252); Record of oral trial hearing from March 17 to 25, 2003 (evidence file, folios 7629 to 7630), and order issued by the First Criminal Chamber on June 5, 2003 (evidence file, folio 9721). 95 96 Cf. Record of oral trial hearing from March 17 to 25, 2003 (evidence file, folios 10359 to 10360). 97 Cf. Record of oral trial hearing from March 17 to 25, 2003 (evidence file, folios 10341 to 10383). The Court considered that the only aggravating circumstance proven was that enshrined in paragraph (3) of Article 310 of the Criminal Code because the author was within the fourth degree of consanguinity. The Court considered that the aggravating circumstances of paragraphs (1), (2) and (7) of the same article were not established, because the victim did not have minor, serious or very serious injuries; There was doubt about the extent of the harm that Brisa suffered, because the existence of humiliating or degrading conditions had not been proven. Cf. Judgment issued by the Sentencing Court No. 4, supra (evidence file, folio 7669). 98 99 Cf. Judgment issued by the Sentencing Court No. 4, supra (evidence file, folios 7667, 7668 and 7673). Cf. Restricted appeal filed by José Miguel De Angulo and Luz Stella Losada on April 14, 2003 (evidence file, folios 7697 to 7712), and appeal filed by E.G.A. on April 14, 2003 (evidence file, folios 7743 to 7752). 100 20