47 accused persons and, also, against other individuals, and requested the expansion of the preliminary proceedings to include the crime of murder.169 140. On April 26, 2000 Rebeca Ibsen Castro filed a complaint to join and broaden the complaint in that same proceeding (supra para. 139) for the crimes of genocide, murder, and abuse allegedly committed by some of the defendants previously mentioned against Messrs. Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas and José Luis Ibsen Peña.170 This petition was rejected on May 20, 2000,171 after which Rebeca Ibsen Castro filed a motion of appeal on June 2, 2000.172 On October 4, 2000, the first Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Santa Cruz ordered to broaden the requested complaint.173 141. On October 18, 2000, the accused invoked the statute of limitations,174 which was granted by the Fifth Criminal First Instance Court on November 10, 2000.175 This decision was appealed by Rebeca Ibsen Castro on November 17, 2000.176 On January 12, 2001, the First Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of the District of Santa Cruz confirmed the appealed order.177 142. On November 12, 2001, the Constitutional Court handed down a decision whereby it overturned the decisions of November 10, 2000, and January 12, 2001 (supra para. 141), and ordered “that the proceeding continue” against some of the accused.178 169 Cf. Complaint filed by Antonia Gladys Oroza, on April 6, 2000 (Case File 37/2000, Volume 2, folios 3122 to 3132 and 11865 to 11875). 170 Cf. Request for extension and adhesion to criminal complaint of April 26, 2000 (Case File 37/2000, Volume 2, folios 3236 to 3239 and 11975 to 11978). 171 Cf. Ruling of the Fifth First Instance Criminal Judge of Santa Cruz, May 20, 2000 (Case file 37/2000, Volume 3, folios 3263 to 3264 and 11999 to 12000). This Court mentioned that the detention and subsequent death of Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas had occurred in La Paz, therefore it lacked jurisdiction to know matters of another territory. It also determined that the facts related to the detention and subsequent death of Mr. José Luis Ibsen Peña did not frame within the provisions of article 35 of the Criminal Procedure Code because, even if some of the accused coincide, the facts had occurred in a different way, therefore the complainant should “addressed separately in order to exercise her rights.” 172 Cf. Brief of appeal submitted by Rebeca Ibsen Castro, on June 2, 2000 (Case File 37/2000, Volume 3, folios 3279 to 3283 and 12014 to 12018). 173 Cf. Ruling of the First Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Santa Cruz, on October 4, 2000 (Case File 37/2000, Volume 3, folios 3399 to 3402 and 12136 to 12139). 174 Cf. Brief submitted by Elías Moreno Caballero, Antonio Elio Rivero, Justo Sarmiento Alanes, Pedro Percy Gonzales Monasterio, Ernesto Morant Lijerón, on October 18, 2000 (Case file 37/2000, Volume 3, folios 3403 to 3408 and 12140 to 12144). 175 Cf. Decision of November 10, 2000 of the Fifth First Instance Criminal Court of the Judicial District of Santa Cruz (Case file 37/2000, Volume 3, folios 3501 to 3506 and 12240 to 12245). 176 Cf. Brief of appeal submitted by Rebeca Ibsen Castro, on November 17, 2000 (Case file 37/2000, Volume 3, folio 3530 and 12269). 177 Cf. Ruling of the First Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Jutice of the District of Santa Cruz on January 12, 2001 (Case file 37/2000, Volume 3, folios 3547 to 3549 and 12286 to 12288). 178 Cf. Constitutional Tribunal Order of November 12, 2001 (Case file 37/2000, Volume 3 and 4, folios 3590 to 3601 and 12333 to 12343).