for over five years due to the behavior of the co-defendants, whose purpose was to cause an undue delay in the proceedings.82 119. On March 29, 2006, the case went to the Criminal Examining Judge (Liquidador) of La Paz District Superior Court and by May 26, 2006, “legalized copies of the appeal of the ruling denying the petition to have criminal action time-barred were before the Superior Court.”83 120. On January 18, 2007, the Final Instruction Decision (Resolution No. 08/2007) was issued, in which the case against Ms. Andrade Salmón was provisionally dismissed on the grounds of insufficient evidence of culpability. The Court wrote that …she had no contact with the Gader firm, much less participate in the Gader contracting process. Furthermore, through Executive Order No. 278/99 she had allegedly requested that the process through which the Gader firm was contracted be checked; the contract was then cleared with the City Council. Furthermore, the audit reports found no criminal liability on the part of the accused, who allegedly did not authorize any payment to the firm. Once the payments were discontinued as requested in Communication No. 095/99 of October 5, 1999, the checks had been reprogrammed to being cancel to the GADER firm. There is, therefore, insufficient evidence of the crimes being charged, namely fraud, criminal conspiracy and mismanagement of public resources,…84 121. When the Government of La Paz appealed this ruling, the Third Criminal Chamber of the La Paz Judicial District Superior Court issued Decision No. 67/2009 of August 4, 2009, confirming the lower court’s decision.85 The Government of La Paz petitioned the court for an explanation and amendment of the earlier ruling, but that petition was denied in Decision No. 72/09 of August 20, 2009, notified on October 19, 2009.86 122. In 2010, through Decision No. 68/10, the case was reopened at the request of the Government of La Paz. On December 15, 2011, the Criminal Examining Court (Liquidador) of La Paz definitively dismissed the case against Ms. Andrade Salmón because the City Government had failed to produce new information to establish Ms. Andrade’s authorship of these crimes.87 From the information available it is unclear whether this is a final decision and not subject to appeal. 2. Street Lamps Case 123. As background, the record of this case shows that a City Council resolution of May 13, 1998, authorized a trip by the City Executive (Mayor Germán Monroy) to Beijing, China, from May 15 to 26, 1998. No reason for the trip was given; the resolution states only that the trip was in response to a courteous 82 Annex 29. Decision No.. 05/2005, Fourth Criminal Examining Court of El Alto, The Mayor of La Paz’s Office v. Germán Monrroy Chazarreta et al. for fraud and other crimes. Reasoned order, El Alto de La Paz, August 13, 2005. Attachment to the petitioners’ brief of August 2, 2006. 83 Annex 27. Report addressed to Dr. Ricardo Alarcón Pozo, President of the La Paz District Court, May 26, 2006. Attachment to the State’s brief of July 20, 2006. 84 Annex 104. Resolution 62/2011 of the Capital’s Criminal Examining Court (Liquidador), dated December 15, 2011. Attachment to the petitioners’ communication of February 14, 2011. 85 Annex 104. Resolution 62/2011 of the Capital’s Criminal Examining Court (Liquidador), dated December 15, 2011. Attachment to the petitioners’ communication of February 14, 2011. 86 Annex 104. Resolution 62/2011 of the Capital’s Criminal Examining Court (Liquidador), dated December 15, 2011. Attachment to the petitioners’ communication of February 14, 2011. 87 Annex 104. Resolution 62/2011 of the Capital’s Criminal Examining Court (Liquidador), dated December 15, 2011. Attachment to the petitioners’ communication of February 14, 2011.