that these combined failings caused the criminal proceedings to take more than three years and end in the extinguishment of the criminal proceedings. The petitioner alleges that this prevented I.V. from obtaining effective remedy of the events denounced and what had happened remained unpunished. 33. With regard to the first criminal trial, the petitioner maintains that on August 31, 2002, the Public Prosecutor’s Office (Ministerio Público) brought a criminal charge against Dr. Edgar Torrico for the crime of serious injury. He states that on November 18, 2002, the Second Sentencing Court of La Paz passed Resolution 86/2002 unanimously sentencing Dr. Torrico to three years in prison for being guilty of the crime of serious injury. The petitioner says that in his opinion, the judgment considered that “pre-operative, written consent by either the patient or her family, as demanded by Articles 19 and 23 of the Code of Medical Ethics,” did not exist. He also says that the judgment states that “neither a rational nor a medical justification exists for carrying out a bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, because neither the multiple adhesions nor the incision in the wall of the womb implied any immediate risk or imminent loss of the patient’s life. The patient might have experienced a complication to her health if she became pregnant again, which means in legal terms, that the condition was one that was pending, in suspense, that cannot be stated that it would come about (…).” 34. The petitioner alleges that this judgment was appealed by Dr. Edgar Torrico and the Third Criminal Court of the Superior Court of Justice of La Paz, on February 12, 2003, annulled the appealed judgment completely on the grounds of “absolute defects which imply nonobservances or violations of rights and guarantees,” and ordered the case to be seen by another Sentencing Court. 35. With regard to the second criminal trial, the petitioner maintains that on March 14, 2003, the case was opened in the First Sentencing Court of La Paz and because two judges exempted themselves from the case, the file was sent to the Third Sentencing Court on May 9, 2003. The petitioner alleges that as the Third Sentencing Court could not be constituted, on May 24, 2003, the case was ordered to be sent to a Sentencing Court in El Alto. The petitioner alleges that the Second Sentencing Court in El Alto, because it could not be constituted, remitted the file (obrados) to the Sentencing Court of Achacachí, which, on February 16, 2004, could not be constituted as a court and therefore remitted the case to the Sentencing Court of Copacabana. The petitioner alleges that it was only on April 30, 2004, that the Sentencing Court of Copacabana issued a writ to open proceedings. 36. The petitioner alleges that on August 13, 2004, the Sentencing Court of Copacabana by means of Resolution 32/2004, found Dr. Edgar Torrico guilty of the crime of culpable injury (Lesión Culpable). He states that Dr. Edgar Torrico contested the judgment. The petitioner maintains that on October 22, 2004, the Second Criminal Court of the Superior Court of Justice of La Paz totally annulled the judgment and ordered the trial to be seen by another Court. The petitioner adds that on November 22, 2004, I.V. lodged an appeal for reversal of the judgment (recurso de casación) which was declared inadmissible on February 1, 2005. 37. With regard to the third criminal trial, the petitioner maintains that on February 24, 2005, the Second Criminal Court of the Superior Court of Justice of La Paz, returned the court records to the Sentencing Court of Copacabana and this court remitted them to the Sentencing Court of Sica Sica on May 9, 2005. The petitioner adds that on August 10, 2005, I.V. asked the Second Criminal Court of the Court of Justice in La Paz for her case to be remitted to a court in the city of La Paz because of the distance and costs involved in having to travel. The petitioner indicates that on August 30, 2005, Dr. Edgar Torrico requested that criminal proceedings should be extinguished in application of Article 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner adds that on September 21, the Court of Sica Sica was constituted and on March 16, 2006, the file was sent to the Fourth Sentencing Court of La Paz because it declared itself incompetent. 38. The petitioner states that on April 27, 2006, Dr. Edgar Torrico filed for the extinguishment of the criminal proceedings on the grounds that more than three years had passed during the 6