58 dilatory and obstructionist effects that, according to the Commission, had on the domestic criminal proceeding. 180. It appears in the case file before the Tribunal that, during 9 years of the procedures of the domestic criminal case,219 approximately 111 different judges with different hierarchies and jurisdiction have tendered abstentions. In that respect, the Court notes that several groups of abstentions have, indeed, delayed the processing of the case. From that total, 59 abstentions suspended the preliminary stage, the deliberation and the processing of the case.220 However, the Tribunal also notes that there is another group of abstentions that did not delay the processing of the case given that they did not prevent the preliminary stage or the trial from continuing.221 Though not all the abstentions had 219 Last action in the case file held by the Court is from December, 2009. 220 The following footnotes correspond to Case file 37/2000. a) From August 13 to 17, 2001, 7 abstentions were filed by: 2 Members of the First Criminal Chamber, 2 Members of the Second Criminal Chamber, and 3 Members of the First Civil Chamber (Volume 5, folios 3864 to 3865, 3867 to 3868, 3873 to 3874). These abstentions were filed in relation to the constitutional appeal for legal protection filed by Antonia Gladys Oroza on July 27, 2001, in order to annul the ruling of January 12, 2001 of the First Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of the District of Santa Cruz that confirmed an order that declared the application of the statute of limitations to the criminal action. These abstentions caused the delay in the procedure within the proceeding, because the Members of the District Superior Court were compeled to solve the matter on the discontinuance of the proceeding because of the declaration on the applicability of the statute of limitations. b) From March 15 to 25, 2002, 2 abstentions were filed by the Fifth First Instance Criminal Judge of Santa Cruz and the Seventh First Instance Criminal Judge of Santa Cruz (volume 4, folios 3616 and 3634). They abstained from solving the principal litis once the Constitutional Court annuled the application of the statute of limitations declared previously and ordered to continue with the proceeding. Said abstentions caused the delay in the procedure within the proceeding since the investigative phase was suspended. c) From April 9 to August 30, 2003, 20 abstentions were filed by the following judges: Eighth, Ninth and Tenth First Instance Criminal Judges of Santa Cruz; judges First to Fourth of First Instance of Santa Cruz; judges Second to Tenth of First Instance Civil and Commercial Courts of Santa Cruz; judges First to Third of First Instance on Family Matters of Santa Cruz, and First Instance Judge of Cotoca, City Andrés Ibáñez of the Department of Santa Cruz (volume 8, folio 4896, and volume 9, folios 4941, 4945, 4952, 4963, 4970, 4976, 4986, 4996, 4998, 5000, 5005, 5010, 5018, 5024, 5028, 5034, 5042, 5057 and 5060). These abstentions caused delay in the proceeding since the investigative phase paralized. d) From February 19 to March 1, 2005 5 abstentions were filed by 3 and 2 Members, respectively, of the First and Second Criminal Chambers of the Superior Court of the District of Santa Cruz (volume 17, folios 7536 to 7537 and 7546). These abstentions caused a delay in the proceeding since the members of the criminal chambers were compeled to solve an appeal submitted against a decision that ordered the application of the statute of limitations to the criminal action and the case file. e) From June 6 to August 16, 2006, 6 abstentions were filed by the judges of the First to Sixth First Instance Civil and Commercial Court (volume 21, folios 9049, 9063, 9068, 9071, 9075, 9078). These abstentions delayed the procedures within the proceeding since the latter was in the debate phase. f) From September 29 to October 14, 2006 6 abstentions were file by 3 Members of the First Criminal Chamber and 3 Members of the Second Criminal Chamber, both at the Superior Court of District (volume 21, folios 9158 and 9173). These abstentions caused delay in the proceeding since the Members of the criminal chambers should solved on the lawfulness of the abstentions filed bye the first instance civil and commerical judges (supra subsection c). In this regard, the debates of the proceeding were cancelled. g) From June 10 to August 1, 2009, 13 abstentions were filed by 3 Members of the First Criminal Chamber, 3 Members of the Second Criminal Chamber, 2 Members of the First Civil Chamber, 2 Members of the Second Civil Chamber, and 3 Members of the Social and Administrative Chamber (appendixes to the brief of pleadings and motions, volume 28, folios 10965, 10968, 10984, and appendixes to the answer to the application, volume 28, folios 19844 to 19845, 19848 and 19850). These abstentions were filed in relation to the appeals filed by Mesdames Rebeca Ibsen Castro, Antonia Gladys Oroza, Oscar Menacho Vaca and Juan Antonio Elio Rivero against the first instance judgment of December 6, 2008. These abstentions caused delay to the proceeding since they had suspensive effects. 221 These footnotes correspond to Case file 37/2000. a) On January 2, 2001 a member of the First Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of the District of Santa Cruz abstained from solving a remedy of appeal filed by Antonia Gladys Oroza on November 16, 2001 against the ruling of November 10, 2000 by which the Fifth First Instance Court declared the application of the statute of limitations to the criminal action (volume 1, folio 2819). b) On January 10, 2001, a member of the First Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of the District of Santa Cruz abstained from solving a remedy of appeal filed by Rebeca Ibsen Castro por la denegación de ampliación del first investigacion order (volume 3, folio 3560). c) From April 18 to July 17, 2002, 3 abstentions were filed by 2 Members of the Second Criminal Chamber y un member of the First Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of