that it has provided the legal mechanisms for Ms. Andrade to seek proper redress of her constitutional rights and guarantees via the avenue of habeas corpus. 73. As for the alleged violation of articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention, the State pointed out that the petitioners’ allegations to the effect that the matters under review are not complex, constitutes a prejudgment on the merits of the facts and of the law. 74. The State is asking the IACHR to consider the following: 1) based on the principle of equality, any individual may be prosecuted, with the exceptions made for the distinctions and privileges recognized in the Constitution of the Plurinational State; accordingly, the various criminal cases against Ms. Andrade were prosecuted in the regular courts. Furthermore, certain criminal cases were instituted when private citizens filed complaints, as in the case of Mr. Luis Ángel Mendieta; 2) the investigation and proceedings against Ms. María Nina Lupe del Rosario Andrade Salmón and other persons implicated in the commission of the alleged crimes can be traced to the mismanagement of State funds by the authorities and former officials of the La Paz Mayor’s Office; 3) the criminal cases have to do with the commission of acts of corruption, whose effect is to delegitimize public institutions -in this case, the Government of La Paz; 4) in the instant case, consideration must be given to Article 120 of the 1972 Code of Criminal Procedure4 which states that in the examining phase, the accused has all the means established in law to fully exercise his or her right of defense and to disprove the charge and obtain, if appropriate, a final order of dismissal5; 5) while it is true that some of the criminal cases against Ms. Andrade were dismissed, the criminal case continued with respect to the other alleged authors and accomplices if sufficient evidence of their guilt was established; therefore, when the time comes for a decision on the merits, the judge has to consider the author’s personality, the seriousness of the offense, the circumstances, the consequences of the crime, the degree of criminal involvement and the inculpatory and exculpatory evidence; 6) when one considers the 8 cases as a whole, their many victims, the number of defendants and the obstructionist behavior of the defendants are indeed complicating factors. 75. The State alleged that the multiple defendants in the cases also exponentially multiplied the number of motions and objections allowed under the law, thereby disrupting litigation on the central facts of the cases. It argued that the motions filed were, as a rule, procedural in nature, requiring the parties to appear for a separate hearing before the competent court; based on its authorities, the latter then had to rule on each one, so as to be able to move the case forward and get a decision on its merits. These motions and objections thus caused judicial delay. The State asserted that in the various criminal cases, motions were constantly being filed, as were unfounded remedies; the parties to whom the competent authorities issued summonses did not appear; motions were filed to have judges disqualified, and various co-defendants were declared in contempt of court. The State alleged that in the Mendieta, Mallasa, Guaglio, Gader and Street Lamps cases, the various judges hearing the petitions filed by Ms. Andrade to have each case declared timebarred, ruled that criminal action could not be time-barred because it was clear that the delay in the proceedings was due to the conduct of the accused or their attorneys, the complexity of the case and the number of co-defendants.6 In the Esin case, the State pointed out that the complaint was dismissed and the record closed at the very start of proceedings, so that Ms. Andrade’s right to be tried within a reasonable period was not violated. 76. As for the alleged violation of Article 21(1) of the Convention, the State asserted that at no time was the alleged victim’s exercise of her right to ownership of her property violated; instead, the court ordered her to post bail and immobilized her ability to freely dispose of her assets; therefore, Ms. Andrade is 4 Article 120 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, DL No. 10426 of August 23, 1972: “[…] the first stage of the trial, called the examining phase, consists of public court proceedings to investigate the facts surrounding the criminal charge, ensure the suspect’s presence for the proceedings and his or her civil responsibility, in order then to examine into the merits or order the case dismissed.”. 5 6 The State is citing Constitutional Court Order No. 345/99-R of November 19, 1999, Constitutional Court of Bolivia. In the Mendieta case, the State was referring to Resolution No. 143/2005 of September 30, 2005; in the Mallasa Case, it was referring to Resolution No. 31/2005 of April 19, 2005 and Resolution No. 098/06 of February 6, 2006; in the Guaglio Case, the State’s reference was to Resolution 90/2005 of September 9, 2005; in the Gader Case, Resolution No. 05/2005 of August 13, 2005, and in the Street Lamps Case, Resolution No. 103/2005 of November 30, 2005.