174. In March 2000, her bail was set at 300,000 bolivianos. On appeal, the First Criminal Chamber of the District Superior Court revoked that bail and set it instead at 150,000 bolivianos.199 Ms. Andrade then requested that the type of bail be changed and that she be allowed to post bail in the form of a plot of land and a Jeep vehicle. On March 27, 2000, the Constitutional Court issued its ruling on the petition of habeas corpus that Ms. Andrade had filed, dismissing it on the grounds that “the judge against whom the appeal was filed brought the case against the petitioner on the basis of Article 18(v) of the Constitution; under Article 34 of the Constitution, the crimes that this article addresses are to be prosecuted in the regular courts and no privilege or special jurisdiction can be claimed. The court also reasoned that the preliminary objections that the appellant asserted must be decided in the criminal case that the judge is hearing.”200In this ruling, the Constitutional Court held that under Article 18 of the Constitution, “public officials or private parties that defy court decisions shall, in the circumstances that this article stipulates and by order of the authority that heard the Habeas Corpus petition, be brought before the Criminal Judge to be prosecuted for compromising constitutional guarantees” and that, under Article 19(v) of the Constitution, this rule applies as well to cases of constitutional amparo.201 175. On April 27, 2000, Ms. Andrade Salmón gave her preliminary statement; at the hearing the court ordered that she should remain at liberty.202 Latter, the final instruction decision was issued calling for prosecution of four co-defendants; it was also expanded to add the name of Juan del Granado Cossio, Mayor of La Paz, who was charged with the same crime. The examining phase was closed in 2003.203 In the meantime, on September 6, 2002, the judge hearing the case agreed to conciliation.204 In 2003, the Government of La Paz complied with the constitutional amparo by agreeing to give the civil party the graded property established in its rulings.205 176. On September 14 and November 23, 2004, Ms. Andrade filed a petition to have the criminal action time-barred and the precautionary measures ordered in the present case lifted. Her requests were denied on September 30, 2005.206 On July 20, 2005, the case was docketed with the Criminal Court (Liquidador),of the District Superior Court of La Paz,207 and as of November 30, 2005 the status of the case was that Ms. Andrade had filed an appeal challenging the court’s denial of her petition to have the case timebarred.208 177. On June 17, 2006, the First Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of La Paz decided the appeal filed by Ms. Andrade to challenge the reasoned order of the Criminal Examining Judge (Liquidador) denying her request. As grounds for denying her appeal, the First Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court 199 Annex 78. Report No. 013/2003 of the Third Criminal Examining Judge (Liquidador) to the Dean Serving as President of the District Superior Court, May 14, 2003. Attachment to the State’s brief of June 18, 2003. 200 Annex 81. Constitutional Court Judgment No. 282/00-R of March 27, 2000. Attachment to the petitioners’ brief of September 23, 2004. 201 Annex 81. Constitutional Court Judgment No. 282/00-R of March 27, 2000. Attachment to the petitioners’ brief of September 23, 2004. 202 Annex 78. Report No. 013/2003 of the Third Criminal Examining Judge Liquidador, to the Dean Serving as President of the District Superior Court, May 14, 2003. Attachment to the State’s brief of June 18, 2003. 203 Annex 78. Report No. 013/2003 of the Third Criminal Examining Judge Liquidador, to the Dean Serving as President of the District Superior Court, May 14, 2003. Attachment to the State’s brief of June 18, 2003. 204 Reported by the petitioners in the attachment to their brief of September 23, 2004. Sworn statement of September 17, 2004. 205 Annex 78. Report No. 013/2003 of the Third Criminal Examining Judge Liquidador, to the Dean Serving as President of the District Superior Court, May 14, 2003. Attachment to the State’s brief of June 18, 2003. 206 Annex 89. Second Criminal Trial Court of the District Superior Court reports to the First Criminal Trial Court Judge (Liquidador), February 2005. Attachment to the State’s brief of September 11, 2006. 207 208 Reported by the petitioners in the attachment to their brief of March 26, 2006. Annex 90. Report from Dr. María Eugenia Iriarte Z., Case Prosecutor, to Dr. Jorge Gutiérrez Roque, District Attorney, dated November 30, 2005. Attachment to the petitioners’ brief of August 2, 2006.