50. On August 5, 2002, Prosecutor N.T.A. issued an arrest warrant against E.G.A.,78 who was arrested on August 7, 2002.79 In this regard, the TJP certification states that there “was awareness he was a flight risk to his country of origin” and indicates that, once arrested, he “fully admitted to the events reported.”80 51. In the interview record of August 7, 2002 before the TJP, E.G.A. stated, inter alia, that “everything was by mutual agreement since he never used physical violence,” and that “he intended to serve [his] sentence for what happened.”81 That same day, a formal indictment was issued against E.G.A. before the Criminal Trial Judge for the crime of rape and his arrest was requested as a precautionary measure, because he had no known address and there were “sufficient indications” that he would flee “as he is of Colombian nationality.”82 52. On August 7, 2002, it was confirmed that Brisa received a psychological evaluation by DCI professionals due to the complaint that her father had filed on July 15 (supra para. 46). In the assessment it was determined that E.G.A. used mechanisms of “psychological manipulation, based on emotional persuasion” and that Brisa presented “a high rate of anxiety and anguish” as a consequence of “sexual abuse”, the disclosure of the fact and facing the corresponding legal process.” It was also determined that Brisa “kept [the situation of sexual abuse] silent due to the emotional conflict due to the ambivalence she felt” towards him: on the one hand, “there was affection” when considering him as a brother, and on the other, she had “feelings.” of rejection and hatred for sexual assaults.” Furthermore, his trust and affection caused her to feel guilt because they made it difficult for her to become aware of and inform her parents about the sexual violence.83 53. The first ruling on precautionary measures was issued on August 8, 2002, when the preventive detention of E.G.A. was ordered in the public jail.84 Subsequently, in a hearing to apply an alternative measure on August 31, 2002, the Tiquipaya Investigative Court decided to end the preventive detention ordered on August 8, 2022, considering that, given the documents presented by the accused, including a rental contract and an employment contract, the requirements for such a precautionary measure, in particular the risk of flight, were no longer present. Thus, in the alternative measures it ordered he was prohibited from leaving the country and the department of Cochabamba, or from communicating with the alleged victim and her family.85 Given the appeals filed against the aforementioned decision of August 31, 2002, at a hearing on September 16, 2002, it was revoked, maintaining preventive detention of the accused. Subsequently, the accused made a second request for cessation of preventive detention, which was considered at a hearing on October 23, 2002, where the Investigating Judge of Tiquipaya rejected the request, pointing out inter alia that, although the accused provided evidence of an address and a future job, there was neither sufficient cause nor evidence in relation to the accused’s exact length of stay in Bolivia.86 The arrest warrant was issued after the issuance of 2 summonses in which it was not possible to find E.G.A. because he had been “maliciously hiding” Cf. Citations and certifications of compliance in records of August 2, 3 and 5, 2002 (evidence file, folios 7269 to 7273). 78 79 Cf. Arrest warrant of August 5, 2002, and certifications of compliance in evidence of August 7, 2002 (evidence file, folios 7273 to 7274). 80 Cf. Preliminary Circumstantiated Investigation Report of the TJP of August 7, 2002 (evidence file, folio 7275). Cf. Record of interview conducted by the Departmental Office of the TJP of Quillacollo on August 7, 2002 (evidence file, folio 7278). 81 82 Cf. Record of formal accusation of August 7, 2002 (evidence file, folio 7279). 83 Cf. Psychological certification carried out by the DNI psychologist, supra (evidence file, folios 7260 to 7261). Cf. Record of hearing on the application of precautionary measures issued by the Investigative Court of Tiquipaya, supra (evidence file, folios 10663 to 10665). 84 Cf. Record of hearing on the application of a substitute measure issued by the Investigative Court of Tiquipaya on August 31, 2002 (evidence file, folios 7299 to 7301). 85 86 Cf. Appeal filed by Luz Stella Losada on September 3, 2002 (evidence file, folios 7314 to 7316); Order admitting the appeal issued by the Investigative Court of Tiquipaya on September 3, 2002 (evidence file, folio 9566); Record of hearing of 18