28 Throughout the trial, an attempt has been made to demonstrate that the patient gave her verbal consent to the bilateral tubal ligation procedure during the peri-operative period. However, this court is convinced that contradictions exist in that respect[.] […] This court establishes fully that, even if the patient had given her verbal consent during the surgical procedure, IT WOULD NOT BE LEGALLY VALID, because the patient was under surgical stress and anesthesia and, consequently, did not possess the appropriate mental or volitional faculties to authorize or consent to a surgical procedure involving the loss of her reproductive capacity. Finally, this court finds that, for this kind of surgery, verbal authorizations are not valid. Rather there must be WRITTEN CONSENT BASED ON INFORMATION AND GUIDANCE PROVIDED TO THE COUPLE BY THE PHYSICIAN, as established by medical regulations in Bolivia and internationally.95 94. This judgment was appealed by the persons convicted on December 5, 2002.96 The appeal was decided on February 12, 2003, by the Third Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of the La Paz Judicial District, declaring that the appeal was admissible, annulling the judgment that had been appealed completely, and ordering that the case be re-tried by another Trial Court.97 It considered that the appealed judgment had been delivered with irremediable defects involving the failure to respect, or the violation of rights and guarantees established in the Constitution, in the conventions and treaties in force, and in the Code of Criminal Procedure; in particular, infringements of the right to admissibility of evidence to the detriment of the defense, and flaws in the application of criminal law.98 E.2 Second oral proceeding 95. On March 14, 2003, the case was moved to the First Trial Court of the La Paz Judicial District99 and on March 17, 2003, an order was issued to open the proceedings.100 On April 22, 2003, the First Trial Court annulled the drawing of lots for lay judges and the resulting constitution of the Court owing to a problem with the computerized system, and established a new date and time for the hearing of the oral proceeding, for the public hearing to draw lots for lay judges, and for the hearing to constitute the court.101 96. On May 9, 2003, the Presiding Judge of the First Trial Court and a technical judge of this court recused themselves from hearing the case, the former because he had given his opinion out of court in an interview, and the latter because he had been accused of malfeasance in this case.102 Resolution No. 086/2002 issued by the Second Trial Court of La Paz on November 18, 2002 (evidence file, volume VII, annex 24 to the submission of the case, folios 2191 to 2192). 95 Cf. Brief of the restricted appeal presented by Dr. Edgar Torrico Ameller on December 5, 2002 (evidence file, volume XII, annex 1(a) to the State’s final arguments, folios 4139 to 4151). 96 Cf. Resolution No. 21/003 issued by the Third Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of the La Paz Judicial District on February 12, 2003 (evidence file, volume VII, annex 25 to the submission of the case, folios 2197 to 2200). 97 Cf. Resolution No. 21/003 issued by the Third Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of the La Paz Judicial District on February 12, 2003 (evidence file, volume VII, annex 25 to the submission of the case, folios 2197 to 2200). 98 Cf. Filing of the case before the First Trial Court of the La Paz Judicial District on March 14, 2003 (evidence file, volume VII, annex 26 to the submission of the case, folio 2202). 99 Cf. Order to open the proceedings of March 17, 2003 (evidence file, volume XII, annex 1(a) to the State’s final arguments, folios 4213 to 4214). 100 Cf. Resolution No. 19/2003 issued by the First Trial Court of the La Paz Judicial District, Reasoned order of April 22, 2003 (evidence file, volume VII, annex 27 to the submission of the case, folios 2204 to 2205). 101 Cf. Brief submitted by Dr. Jose Luis Rivero Aliaga, President of the First Trial Court, to the technical judge of this Court on May 9, 2003 (evidence file, volume VII, annex 28 to the submission of the case, folio 2207); Brief submitted by Dr. Raúl Gaston Huaylla Rivera, technical judge of the First Trial Court in case FIS No. 894, dated May 9, 2003 (evidence file, volume VII, annex 29 to the submission of the case, folio 2209). 102