61 Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Civil and Commercial First Instance Courts of Santa Cruz, between June 6 and August 16, 2006 (supra para. 180, note 220). In that respect, the judge of the Seventh Civil and Commercial First Instance Court referred these abstentions for consultation before the Superior District Court of Santa Cruz. Based on the assignment, it corresponded to the First Civil Chamber to hear the inquiry; however, its members disqualified themselves given that since “[i]t was a criminal case, it corresponded to the superior tribunal with ratione materiae jurisdiction to hear the question of abstention.”223 Afterwards, all the members of the First and Second Criminal Chambers of the Superior District Court abstained from hearing the question on the lawfulness of the abstentions presented by the first intance judges (supra para. 189 note 220). Therefore, the question was referred, again, to the First Civil Chamber, who finally declared the illegality of the abstentions presented by the first instance judges of the first to sixth courts.224 187. The case file was returned to the judge of the Seventh Civil First Instance Court in order to continue with the processing; however, said judge forwarded the case file to the judge of the Second Civil and Commercial First Instance Court,225 upon considering that the case file should be remitted to the judge who had abstain himself. Afterwards, the judge of the Second First Instance Court remitted the case file to the judge of the Seventh Civil First Instance Court so that such judge “could comply with the provisions established in article 6 of Act 1760,” that is, to continue with the processing of the case.226 This caused that, before admitting the processing of the case again, the judge of the Seventh Civil First Instance Court invoked the advisory jurisdiction regarding a dispute over jurisdiction “between two trial civil courts with the same hierarchy” before the Superior District Court of Santa Cruz.227 The Full Champer of the Superior District Court of Santa Cruz declared the judge of the Seventh Civil and Commercial First Instance Court to have jurisdiction based on the provisions of the Ley de Abreviación Civil y de Asistencia Familiar (Law To Shorten Periods in Civil Proceedings and Family Assistance), as it is applicable to the “criminal proceeding that gave rise to the dispute over jurisdiction,” if in the consultation the abstention is found to be illegal, a penalty shall be imposed on the judge who presented such abstention, “and the consulting judge must proceed with the processing of the case until its conclusion.”228 The case file was remitted to said judge of the Seventh First Instance Court.229 223 Cf. Order of the Seventh First Instance Civil and Commercial Judge of Santa Cruz of August 24, 2006; decree of the First Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of District of Santa Cruz of August 24, 2006 and order of the latter by which it sent the case file to the First Criminal Chamber, of September 4, 2006 (Case file 37/2000, Cuerpo 21, folios 9152 to 9156, and 17950 to 17955). 224 Cf. Order of the First Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of District of Santa Cruz, of October 30, 2006 (Case file 37/2000, Volume 21, folios 9176 to 9177, and 17974 to 17975). The abstention of the First Instance Civil and Commercial Judge was caused by a challenge filed by Rebeca Ibsen Castro. 225 Cf. Decree of the Seventh First Instance Civil Judge of Santa Cruz of December 13, 2006 and order of this same Judge by which he sent the case file to the Second First Instance Civil and Commercial Judge (Case file 37/2000, Volume 21, folios 9187 to 9188 and 17985 to 17986). 226 Cf. Decree of the Second First Instance Civil and Commercial Judge of Santa Cruz of December 16, 2006 (Case file 37/2000, Volume 21, folios 9190 and 17988). 227 Cf. Order of the Seventh First Instance Civil Judge of Santa Cruz of December 19, 2006 (Case file 37/2000, Volume 22, folios 9196 to 9197 and 17991 to 17992). 228 Cf. Order of the Full Chamber of the Superior Court of District of Santa Cruz of January 15, 2007 (Case file 37/2000, Volume 22, folios 9224 to 9227 and 18019 to 18022). 229 Cf. Order of the Superior Court of Justice of Santa Cruz of February 12, 2007 (Case file 37/2000, Volume 22, folios 9234 to 9235 and 18029 to 18030).