21 74. On April 7, 1983, the National Commission of Investigation of Disappeared Citizens filed a complaint regarding the forced disappearance of Renato Ticona, and requested the investigation of the offenses defined in Articles 252 (murder), 292 (deprivation of liberty), 293 (threats), 334 (abduction) of the Criminal Code in force at that moment, since the crime of forced disappearance was not established by law. The criminal procedure was initiated on April 7, 1983 and on June 4, 1983, the Third Magistrate’s Court on criminal matters in and for La Paz ordered the summary criminal investigation of the four alleged responsable for the crimes before mentioned. On February 28, 1985, Honoria Estrada de Ticona and Hugo Ticona brought charges with the District Prosecutor in Criminal Matters against the accused for the crimes commited against Renato Ticona; in said complaint, they narrated the situation experienced by Renato and Hugo Ticona. Said complaint was forwarded to the Third Magistrate's Court on Criminal Matters. On September 2, 1985, said Court ordered, by means of resolution No. 089/85,51 the filing of the case in favor of one of the accused.52 In the year 1986, the case file was closed for all the accused but the stage of preliminary proceedings remained pending. 75. Afterwards, on March 8, 2005, the Public Prosecutor's Office requested the Supreme Court of Justice of La Paz to reopen the case file, which was done on March 9, 2005 before the Third Magistrate’s Court on Criminal Matters.53 As of the reopening of the criminal procedure, a series of legal acts were carried out,54 and the proceedings were forwarded to full trial. Finally, on January 8, 2008, the Third Magistrate’s Court on Criminal Matters of the Judicial District of La Paz delivered a condemnatory judgment55,after having ruled a judgment in default against the then members of the army (a colonel, a lieutenant and a sergeant) for the crimes of : Murder, punishable with thirty (30) years of imprisonment, without the right to pardon; deprivation of liberty, punishable with two (2) years and a fine of a hundred (100) days; threats, punishable with eighteen (18) months and abduction, punishable with thirty (30) years without the right to pardon. Furthermore, by means of the judgment, two agents of the former Special Service of Security, also known as Hugo Ticona Estrada on April 5, 1983 before the National Commission of Investigation of Disappeared Citizens (appendices to the response of the petition, Appendix 3, V.I, p. 1901 to 1902). 51 Cf. Resolution Nº 089/85 of the Third Magistrate’s Court on Criminal Matters of September 2, 1985 (Appendices to the response of the petition, Appendix 3, Volume I, p. 2071 to 2073). 52 On July 12, 1985, the Magistrate's Court on Criminal Matters declared the defense of lack of legal definition alleged by one of the accused proven. (Appendices to the response of the petition, appendix 3, volume I, p. 2064 and 2065). 53 Cf. Ruling of March 9, 2005 issued by the Supreme Court of Justice of the District (Appendices to the response of the petition, Appendix 3, v. I, p. 2086). 54 Some of the main legal acts carried out were: a) On May 18, 2005, the Prosecutor informed that, by virtue of the testimony rendered by Hugo Ticona, it was established that, apart from the already accused people, two more persons participated in the disappearance and torture of Renato and Hugo Ticona. Based on the foregoing, the Prosecutor requested the issuance of a reasoned ruling of expansion against the above mentioned people; b) ruling issued on September 11, 2006 by the Magistrate’s Court on Criminal Matters in and for La Paz, by means of which it was declared the inapplicability of the Constitutional Judgment Nº 101/04 and it was ordered the continuance of the criminal action, upon considering that: “it is evident that the accused is absolutely responsible for the delay in the processing of the case, inasmuch as they were declared in default [and] the instant case deals with crimes against humanity"; c) hearings for the declaration of judgment in default held on November 8, 2006 and July 31, 2007, by which five defendants were declared in default. Said records were notified to the accused; d) on August 21, 2007, the Magistrate's Court on Criminal Matters dismissed the preliminary proceedings; e) on August 31, 2007, the Prosecutor’s Office requested an injunction based on the conclusions; and f) on September 21, 2007, the Magistrate’s Court on Criminal Matters in and for La Paz issued a writ of indictment. (Record of Appendices to the complaint, Appendix 2, p. 173, 435 and 436; and record of appendices to the response of the petition, Appendix 3, V. III, p. 2519 and 2534 to 2538). 55 Cf. Judgment of January 8, 2008. supra note 32.