cannot exist outside the law." However, he indicated that “his aim was conflict resolution” and that “he very much wanted a short proceeding.” The testimony was interrupted because the witness was very nervous.84 - Eduardo’s mother, María Cristina De Angulo Angulo, also testified and said that in May 2002, during a visit with her sister to Bolivia to the home of their brother, José Miguel, she noted “the special relationship between Brisa and Eduardo. She was always caressing him, she would hug him with much affection, and he paid special attention to her." She added that "it was very common to see Brisa paying attention to Eduardo, caressing him, putting her hand under his shirt, all in front of José Miguel, who said that Brisa was like that, very expressive." She also indicated that her sister Helena expressed her concern to José Miguel that Brisa could be in love with Eduardo, but that "he said that was impossible, that Brisa’s personality was too strong to fall for the charms of a man." She also indicated that "in Colombia, marriages between cousins are normal, and their family has several of these types of marriages.”85 At the end of the trial, the court unanimously ruled to acquit the accused.86 f. On September 23, 2005, the judgment to acquit was read out. After dismissing the majority of the evidence, in most cases for lack of objectivity, 87 the Court concluded that “there was no efficient investigation. Jurisdictional control of the investigation was not exercised, leading to the exclusion of the evidence [...] The evidence was not pertinent to the aim of the investigation and was not useful for discovering the truth. The witness testimony offered, aside from its indirect character, was not convincing to the Court."88 The most important grounds of the ruling include the fact that the Court determined that Brisa and Eduardo "had sexual relations, as their testimony given during the trial stated as much, without specifying the date. However, due to the evidentiary weakness of the public and private prosecutions, the Court cannot find whether these sexual relations were consensual or sexual assault, or even if sexual relations took place, because there is no forensic medical report to indicate such situation.”89 It also indicated that "the victim also failed to specify the intimidating conduct that bent her to her attacker’s will," concluding that "the omissions in the investigation make it impossible for the Court to reach a conclusion based on the facts described, much less to find the accused guilty of the crime alleged," finding that the existence of seduction, violence, or psychological pressure was not proven.90 It also concluded that it had not been possible to find culpability or criminal intent in the conduct of the accused “because the sexual relations between cousins cause discomfort in society but is not a crime,” adding that the aggravating factor applicable in the rape between family members requires violence.” But “this case did not involve violence or intimidation," and the judgment concludes that there was no criminal intent, as despite the allegations, "no planning or intent of a crime could be demonstrated to have existed." Lastly, it indicated that due to the “lack of evidence, the illegal action and its corresponding criminal offense cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and therefore the State must rule to acquit in order to protect the legal certainty of a society that must have the certainty that proper evidence is required for the punishment of crimes."91 Testimony of José Miguel De Angulo Angulo, Second oral trial, second criminal proceeding A, page 261vta-262vta. Testimony of María Cristina De Angulo Angulo, second oral trial, second criminal proceeding A, page 267vta-268. 86 Second oral trial, second criminal proceeding A, pages 271. 87 Regarding the Brisa's testimony, the Court said it noted "a psychological state that prevented her from being objective and noted some contradictions in her statements that delegitimized her testimony, such as the fact of having said she avoided pregnancies using the rhythm method taught to her by Clementina, the domestic employee, the same one who, when testifying, denied having taught Brisa that contraception method. The testimony is influenced by negative pressure focused on discrediting the accused. Therefore, the only thing the trial proved with certainty is that Eduardo Gutiérrez is Brisa's cousin and that they lived in her parents house and had sexual relations with each other, confirmed by the testimony of the accused, Eduardo Gutiérrez.” Other testimony was excluded or granted little probative weight because it was from the parents of the alleged victim or the accused (José Miguel De Angulo Angulo, María Cristina De Angulo); there was a dependency relationship with Brisa's parents (Clementina Mamani Ríos) or the MAP project (Marisol Sánchez Saravia); or a commitment to Brisa's movement, as they testified while wearing the blue ribbon (Clementina Mamani Ríos, Marisol Sánchez Saravia, Emilio Sánchez). Judgment, second oral trial, second criminal proceeding A, pages 275, 275vta, 276vta, and 277vta. 88 Judgment, second oral trial, second criminal proceeding A, pages 278vta. 89 Judgment, second oral trial, second criminal proceeding A, page 279. 90 Judgment, second oral trial, second criminal proceeding A, page 279. 91 Judgment, second oral trial, second criminal proceeding A, page 279vta. 84 85 12