143. On January 5, 2004, the hearing to begin oral arguments was suspended again, this time because the judge was on vacation.138 On January 12, 2004, one of the co-defendants filed a motion to have the Ninth Criminal Examining Judge recuse himself, who agreed to recuse himself on January 13, 2004.139 Subsequently, a motion was filed to have the proceedings declared null and void, based on Constitutional Court Judgment No. 400/2003-R, and asking that all the proceedings, up through and including the final instruction binding the defendants over for trial be revoked.140 On March 25, 2004, the Eighth Criminal Trial Judge (Liquidador) nullified the final instruction of December 11, 2002.141 144. On January 21, 2005, the Second Criminal Trial Court (Liquidador) received a brief from Ms. Andrade in which she requested that criminal action be time-barred on the grounds that more than four and a half years had passed since the date on which she gave her preliminary statement, and the plenary phase had still not gotten underway. She also based her request on the fact that the proceedings were cancelled to the indictment decision because the procedural formalities had not been observed.142 As grounds for her request to have criminal action time barred, Ms. Andrade cited the Third Transitory Provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure,143 which states that effective May 31, 1999, all cases started under the former procedural system would have to be concluded within the space of five years or be time-barred; she also cited Constitutional Court judgment S.C. No. 77/2002 of August 29, 2002, which states that defendants must have the certainty that their case under the old system will last a reasonable period of time and not go on indefinitely; another source she cited was Constitutional Court Order No. 079/2004-ECA of September 29, 2004, which states that an action shall be time-barred when the delay in the proceedings is the fault of the court or the Public Prosecutor’s Office and not the person on trial.144 145. On November 30, 2005, after examining the procedural activity of the plaintiff, the codefendants, the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the court, the Second Criminal Trial Court (Liquidador) dismissed the motion that 5 co-defendants, including Ms. Andrade, had filed to have criminal action timedbarred in this case.145 The Second District Criminal Court held that the delay was in large part due to the 138 Annex 76. Brief from the District Superior Court to the Second Criminal Trial Court Judge (Liquidador), in which it reports on compliance with Constitutional Court Judgment No. 101/2004. Information presented by the petitioners during the working meeting held at IACHR headquarters in November 2006 and forwarded to the State in a communication dated December 12, 2006. 139 Annex 76. Brief from the District Superior Court to the Second Criminal Trial Court Judge (Liquidador), in which it reports on compliance with Constitutional Court Judgment No. 101/2004. Information presented by the petitioners during the working meeting held at IACHR headquarters in November 2006 and forwarded to the State in a communication dated December 12, 2006. 140 Annex 76. Brief from the District Superior Court to the Second Criminal Trial Court Judge (Liquidador), in which it reports on compliance with Constitutional Court Judgment No. 101/2004. Information presented by the petitioners during the working meeting held at IACHR headquarters in November 2006 and forwarded to the State in a communication dated December 12, 2006. 141 Annex 77. Resolution No. 103/2005 of the Second Trial Court (Liquidador), November 30, 2005. Information provided by the petitioners during the working meeting held at IACHR headquarters in November 2006 and sent to the State in a communication dated December 12, 2006. 142 Annex 75. Brief that Ms. Maria Nina Lupe del Rosario Andrade Salmón filed with the Second Trial Judge (Liquidador), in which she again requests and states the grounds for time-barring the criminal case, dated November 6, 2004. Information presented by the petitioners during the working meeting held at IACHR headquarters in November 2006 and forwarded to the State in a communication dated December 12, 2006. 143 Third Transitory Provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure: DURATION OF THE CASE: “Cases that must be heard according to the previous system of criminal procedure, shall be completed within no more than five years, calculated from the date of publication of this Code. Judges shall, on their own initiative or at the request of a party, determine whether this time period has elapsed and, where appropriate, shall declare the criminal action time-barred and closet the record on the case.” 144 Annex 75. Brief that Ms. Maria Nina Lupe del Rosario Andrade Salmón filed with the Second Criminal Trial Judge (Liquidador), in which she reiterates her well-reasoned request to have the criminal action declared time-barred, dated December 6, 2004. Information supplied by the petitioners during the working meeting held at IACHR headquarters in November 2006 and forwarded to the State via a communication dated December 12, 2006. 145 Annex 77. Resolution No. 103/2005 of the Second Criminal Trial Court (Liquidador), November 30, 2005. Information provided by the petitioners during the working meeting held at IACHR headquarters in November 2006 and sent to the State in a communication dated December 12, 2006.