29 Consequently, the file of the proceedings was remitted to the Third Trial Court of La Paz,103 which returned the case to the original court on May 12, 2003, due to procedural defects relating to the acceptance or rejection of the recusals.104 97. Since a sufficient number of citizens had not come forward to constitute the Third Trial Court, it was decided to forward the case to the nearest judicial district,105 which was El Alto; accordingly, the file was forwarded to the Trial Court on duty on May 28, 2003.106 The case was then moved to the Second Trial Court of El Alto on May 31, 2003, and a date was set for the hearing of the oral proceeding and for the public hearing to draw lots for lay judges.107 98. On July 15, 2003, a special public hearing was held to constitute the court before the El Alto Second Trial Court. At the hearing it was reported that none of the citizens whose names had been drawn had been notified, because they had not been located at their registered addresses. Consequently, the Court decided to refer the case to the nearest judicial district, corresponding to the town of Achacachi.108 99. On February 16, 2004, a public hearing was held to constitute a court before the Achacachi Trial Court, which determined, having held the hearing and being unable to constitute a court with lay judges, to remit the proceedings to the nearest judicial district, which corresponded to Copacabana.109 The case was forwarded to that court on February 19, 2004.110 On April 30, 2004, an order was issued to admit the case.111 100. On August 13, 2004, following the oral proceeding, the Copacabana Trial Court composed of three lay judges and a technical judge delivered judgment. In this judgment it rejected the plea of unfounded proceedings filed by the defense and declared the instructing physician guilty of the offense of negligent bodily harm (lesión culposa) defined in article 274 of the Bolivian Criminal Code, sentencing him to a fine of sixty-four thousand bolivianos, plus costs in favor of the State, and reparation of the damage to I.V.112 101. The physician filed a “restricted appeal”113 against this sentence arguing, above all, the Cf. Remittal of case FIS 894 to the Third Trial Court (TS-1. N° 92/2003), on May 9, 2003 (evidence file, volume VII, annex 30 to the submission of the case, folio 2211). 103 Cf. Decision issued by the Third Trial Court of the La Paz Judicial District on May 12, 2003 (evidence file, volume VII, annex 31 to the submission of the case, folio 2213). 104 Cf. Record of public hearing to constitute a court (evidence file, volume XII, annex 1(b) to the State’s final arguments, folio 4375). 105 Cf. Remittal of original file to the acting Trial Court of El Alto (TS 1 Of. No. 105/03), on May 28, 2003 (evidence file, volume VII, annex 32 to the submission of the case, folio 2215). 106 Cf. Resolution issued by the Second Trial Court of El Alto on May 31, 2003 (evidence file, volume VII, annex 33 to the submission of the case, folio 2217). 107 Cf. Record of public hearing for the special constitution of the Second Trial Court of El Alto of July 15, 2003 (evidence file, volume VII, annex 34 to the submission of the case, folio 2219). 108 Cf. Record of public hearing for the special constitution of the Trial Court of Achacachi of February 16, 2004 (evidence file, volume VII, annex 35 to the submission of the case, folio 2221). 109 Cf. Remittal to the Trial Court of the province of Copacabana on February 19, 2004 (evidence file, volume VII, annex 35 to the submission of the case, folio 2222). 110 Cf. Order to initiate the trial of April 30, 2004 (evidence file, volume XII, annex 1(c)) to the State’s final arguments, folios 4534 to 4535). 111 Cf. Resolution No. 32/2004 issued by the Copacabana Trial Court on August 13, 2004 (evidence file, volume VII, annex 36 to the submission of the case, folios 2224 to 2230). 112 113 Article 407. (Grounds). The remedy of restricted appeal shall be filed for disregard or erroneous application of the law.