the doctor to carry out a salpingo-oophorectomy. It also claims that they observed that the ligature was carried out to ensure her well-being once verbal consent was granted by I.V. 51. The State alleges that Dr. Edgar Torrico behaved prophylactically (preventatively) as obliged to in order to protect the health of I.V. and safeguard her complete recovery and rehabilitation after the caesarian, by deploying the technical means at his disposal where appropriate. It also alleges that if he had forgotten to inform I.V. and not suggested the tube ligature he would have been subject to appropriate disciplinary regime. 52. The State alleges that the petitioner has lodged no information concerning the reversibility of the tube ligature. The State claims that now that medicine has progressed this is now possible and is carried out at the request of patients who want to restore their reproductive capability, with a high level of success (70%). 53. The State adds that the petitioner has not lodged any information to suggest that there is any coercion or mass birth control policies in Bolivia. Furthermore, the State places on record that the petitioner has not demonstrated in any way that the Bolivian State is operating public policies of forcible sterilization, much less aimed at vulnerable groups such as indigenous women, women from rural areas and/or refugee women. It claims that the petitioner has not lodged any information to establish the existence of coercion or mass birth control policies in the Bolivian State. 54. With regard to the exhaustion of remedies available under domestic law, the State claims that administrative proceedings were held against Dr. Edgar Torrico and Dr. Marco Vargas. The State alleges that these proceedings ruled in favor of the dismissal of Dr. Edgar Torrico while the case against Dr. Marco Vargas was dismissed. Subsequently, in view of the appeal lodged by Dr. Edgar Torrico via Administrative Resolution (unnumbered), dated March 10, 2003, point 1 of the Administrative Resolution which established the administrative responsibility of Dr. Torrico, was set aside on the grounds that there was no evidence against him. 55. In addition, the State claims that criminal proceedings were brought against Dr. Edgar Torrico for the crime of causing serious injury. The State alleges that in its Resolution 86/2002, the Second Sentencing Court of La Paz, called for a prison sentence of three years. Subsequently, the State informs that on December 5, 2002, Dr. Edgar Torrico lodged an appeal against the sentence. In addition it states that the petitioner lodged a restricted appeal alleging the nonobservance and erroneous interpretation of procedural law and demanded a prison sentence of 8 years rather than the three laid down. On February 12, 2003, the State adds that the Third Criminal Court of the Court of Justice of La Paz published its Hearing Writ (Auto de Vista) Resolution 21/2003 which annulled the appealed judgment and ordered the case to be passed to another sentencing court. 56. The State claims that the criminal proceedings taken by I.V. were transferred to other courts on various occasions because of excuses made by different judges. It alleges that on August 13, 2004, the Sentencing Court of Copacabana issued Resolution 32/2004 which provided for a fine as the main punishment for the crime of serious injury levied against Edgar Torrico. The State adds that Dr. Edgar Torrico made a restricted appeal against this judgment on August 28, 2004, and on October 22, 2004, by Resolution 265/2004, the judgment was wholly annulled and the case was ordered back to another Court. 57. The State alleges that on April 10, 2006, Dr. Edgar Torrico lodged a motion before the Fourth Sentencing Court requesting the extinguishment of criminal proceedings in application of Article 133 of the Code of Criminal Proceedings which determines the maximum length of proceedings as three years. The State alleges that the Fourth Sentencing Court, on June 1, 2006, via Resolution 13/2006 declared proven the motion of the extinguishment of criminal proceedings and ruled that the case should be filed. 9