160. On January 28, 2004, the Fourth Criminal Trial Court (Liquidador)of La Paz held a decision in which Ms. Andrade Salmón was convicted and sentenced to three years in prison, for the crime of mismanagement of public resources (Article 224 of the Penal Code); she was also ordered to pay the State civil damages and costs, and was acquitted of the crime of dereliction of duty (Article 154 of the Penal Code).172 The verdict in Ms. Andrade’s case was based on the fact that during her term as Mayor in 1999, she had answered the letter CITE DT 512/99 from the Director of Pensions (falsified) without first apprising herself of the economic and financial circumstances and the accounting statements, and of the proceedings against her to compel payment, and without holding the necessary meetings to go over the situation with all her advisors “and not simply rubberstamp the conduct of her subordinates…; however, she was not deemed to be at fault in the administrative decision).”173 161. The verdict was appealed by Ms. Andrade Salmón, ten other persons convicted in the case and the Government of La Paz.174 The appeal that Ms. Andrade filed on February 4, 2004, was based on the fact that the exculpatory evidence had not been fully and credibly weighed.175 162. On September 16, 2004, Ms. Andrade petitioned the Second Criminal Chamber of the District Superior Court to declare the criminal action time-barred, to have the record in the case closed and to lift all the precautionary measures ordered against her in this case.176 She repeated her request in a well-reasoned brief filed on December 6, 2004.177 On December 19, 2004, the Second Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court issued a decision in which it ordered that the petitions asking that the case be declared time-barred be sent to the Prosecutor’s Office pursuant to the Supreme Court’s instruction to the effect that requests to have criminal action time-barred must be reviewed by the judge or court hearing the case.178 On February 18, 2005, the Second Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court issued a decision in which it wrote that, under the Supreme Court’s instructions and its subsequent Circular No. 27/04 of September 20, 2004, once a petition has been filed asking that criminal action be time-barred because the time period allowed under the Second Transitory Provision of Law No. 1970 has expired, that petition should be directly sent to the Prosecutor, without delay, for the Prosecutor to issue the corresponding determination, whereupon the competent court shall determine what the law requires.179 172 Annex 37. Decision No. 12/2004 of the Capital’s Fourth Criminal Trial Court (Liquidador) of January 28, 2004. Attachment to the petitioners’ brief of September 23, 2004; Annex 103. Supreme Order No. 266, Sucre 27/10/2011, Second Criminal Chamber. Attachment to the petitioner’s brief of February 14, 2012 173 Annex 37. Decision No. 12/2004 of the Capital’s Fourth Criminal Trial Court (Liquidador) of January 28, 2004. Attachment to the petitioners’ brief of September 23, 2004; Annex 103. Supreme Order No. 266, Sucre 27/10/2011, Second Criminal Chamber. Attachment to the petitioner’s brief of February 14, 2012. 174 Annex 38. La Paz District Superior Court, May 12, 2006, Report to Dr. Ricardo Alarcón Pozo, President of the District Superior Court, signed by Dr. Dora Villarroel de Lira, Member, Second Criminal Chamber, Superior Court, La Paz-Bolivia. Attachment to the State’s brief of June 28, 2006; Annex 103. Supreme Order No. 266, Sucre 27/10/2011, Second Criminal Chamber. Attachment to the petitioner’s brief of February 14, 2012. 175 Appeal that Maria Nina del Rosario Lupe Andrade Salmón filed with the Fourth Criminal Trial Court Judge (Liquidador) on February 5, 2004. Attachments brought from Bolivia, February 2004. 176 Annex 40. Brief that Ms. Maria Nina Lupe del Rosario Andrade Salmón addressed to the members of the Second Criminal Chamber of the District Superior Court, in the criminal case brought by the Government of La Paz, called the Guaglio case, dated September 16, 2004. Information that the petitioners supplied during the working meeting held at IACHR headquarters in November 2006 and forwarded to the State via a communication dated December 12, 2006. 177 Annex 41. Brief that Ms. Maria Nina Lupe del Rosario Andrade Salmón addressed to the President and members of the Second Criminal Chamber of the District Superior Court, dated December 6, 2004. Information that the petitioners supplied during the working meeting held at IACHR headquarters in November 2006 and forwarded to the State via a communication dated December 12, 2006. 178 Annex 42. District Superior Court, December 19, 2004. Information that the petitioners supplied during the working meeting held at IACHR headquarters in November 2006 and forwarded to the State via a communication dated December 12, 2006. 179 Annex 43. District Superior Court, February 18, 2005. Information that the petitioners supplied during the working meeting held at IACHR headquarters in November 2006 and forwarded to the State via a communication dated December 12, 2006.