32 April 10, 2006, the same court set aside its decision of March 20, 2006, and admitted the case.135 111. On April 28, 2006, the instructing physician’s defense filed a motion that the criminal action be extinguished, based on article 133 of the Bolivian Code of Criminal Procedure, 136 because more than three years had elapsed since the first action of the proceedings against him.137 The oral trial began on May 7, 2006.138 When the oral trial was re-started on June 1, 2006, the Fourth Trial Court of La Paz declared that the motion for the action to be extinguished was founded and ordered that the case be closed.139 This decision indicated that it was the organs responsible for the administration of justice that had caused the delays and considered: That the case documents reveal quite clearly that there has been a delay related, first, to the ineffectiveness of the officials responsible for delivering correct notifications for the constitution of a court jury and, then, to jurisdictional bodies that, for trivial reasons, have proceeded to suspend hearings and move the case from one jurisdiction to another [...]. The organs responsible for administering justice have toyed with the law in a way that seriously impaired the correct administration of justice.140 112. Both the prosecutor and I.V. filed an appeal against the decision declaring the extinction of the criminal proceedings.141 On August 23, 2006, the First Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of La Paz declared the appeals inadmissible and the questions raised irrelevant and, therefore, confirmed the contested decision.142 This ruling reiterated that the delays in the proceedings were attributable to the courts, indicating: “[a] review of the court records shows that the delay is attributable to the court hearing the case because, twice, it caused the proceedings to be annulled due to procedural defects.”143 113. On September 21, 2006, the Fourth Trial Court of La Paz indicated that, by law, the said decision was final, and it was not necessary to expressly declare that it had become final.144 submission of the case, folio 2266). Cf. Decision issued by the Fourth Trial Court of La Paz on April 10, 2006 (evidence file, volume VII, annex 51 to the submission of the case, folio 2268). 135 Article 308 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure establishes the exception of the extinction of the criminal action, and article 27 (10), stipulates that this shall be declared based on the expiry of the maximum time for the duration of the proceedings and, according to article 133, this shall not exceed three years from the first act of the proceedings, except in case of contempt of court. 136 Cf. Brief filed by Dr. Edgar Torrico Ameller before the Fourth Trial Court of La Paz on April 28, 2006 (evidence file, volume X, annex 36 to the answering brief of the State, folios 3881 to 3890). 137 138 5354). Cf. Record of the oral hearing (evidence file, volume XIII, annex 1(f)) to the State’s final arguments, folios 5344 to Cf. Ruling No. 13/06 issued by the Fourth Trial Court of La Paz on June 1, 2006 (evidence file, volume VII, annex 52 to the submission of the case, folios 2270 to 2275). 139 Ruling No. 13/06 issued by the Fourth Trial Court of La Paz on June 1, 2006 (evidence file, volume VII, annex 52 to the submission of the case, folio 2274). 140 Cf. Appeal filed by the prosecutor on June 1, 2006 (evidence file, volume XIII, annex 1(f)) to the State’s final arguments, folio 5355); Appeal filed by I.V. on June 8, 2006 (evidence file, volume XIII, annex 1(f)) to the State’s final arguments, folios 5361 to 5367). 141 Cf. Ruling No. 514/06 issued by the First Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court del Distrito of La Paz on August 23, 2006 (evidence file, volume VII, annex 53 to the submission of the case, folios 2277 to 2279). 142 Ruling No. 514/06 issued by the First Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court del Distrito of La Paz on August 23, 2006 (evidence file, volume VII, annex 53 to the submission of the case, folio 2278). 143 Cf. Decision issued by the Fourth Trial Court of La Paz on September 21, 2006 (evidence file, volume XIII, annex 1.f) to the State’s final arguments, folio 5401). 144