163. In March 2005, the District Attorney’s Office of La Paz petitioned the President and members of the Second Criminal Chamber of the La Paz Judicial District Superior Court to deny the petitions requesting that these cases be time-barred, as they should go forward as the law prescribes. The District Attorney’s Office based its request on the following points: 1) that the case had started on December 17, 1999, in response to a complaint filed, and a number of appeals challenging the conviction handed down on January 28, 2004 were pending; 2) the defendants had requested that the action be time-barred because the verdict had not been enforced within the period of five years from the start of the case, and to support their argument had cited Constitutional Court Judgment No. 101/04 of September 14, 2004;180 3) in the case it has been established that the defendants have engaged in systematic delaying tactics, by not making their preliminary statements at the appropriate time once the initial investigating decision had been issued, and causing cancellation of various hearings during the trial phase when they or their attorneys did now show up in court; 4) it has been established that a number of defendants were declared in contempt of court; and 5) according to the constitutional judgment the petitioners cite, when the defendants have been declared in contempt or have engaged in delaying tactics, the criminal action cannot be time-barred as it is the only legal means that society and the State have to defend themselves from organized crime.181 164. On April 15, 2005, one of the co-defendants asked that the case files be returned to the Prosecutor so that the latter might consider that co-defendant’s request to have the criminal action timebarred.182 All parties were notified of this measure on May 5, 2005, and the files were sent to the Prosecutor on May 10, 2005. On June 6, 2005, the Prosecutor denied the request to declare the criminal action timebarred and ordered notification of his decision. On July 22, 2005, following the court’s vacation, the case was referred, by random selection, to Judge Armando Pinilla, who on August 2, 2005 recused himself on the grounds that he had had a role in the case when he served as Judge of the Eighth Criminal Trial Court. On September 8, 2005, his recusal was declared to be legal.183 165. On September 9, 2005, the request that Ms. Andrade and Mr. Valle filed to have the criminal action time-barred was denied. They were notified on September 12, 2005.184 The District Superior Court denied Ms. Andrade’s petition to have the criminal action time barred on the following grounds: 1) the record of the public hearing held to take the defendant’s preliminary statement shows that the hearing was suspend because she was absent without cause; 2) the memorandum on file in which she requests an extension of the date set for her statement at trial; 3) the motion filed to have the proceedings declared null and void; 5) the appeal she filed challenging the order to stand trial; and 6) the appeal she filed against her conviction.185 180 Annex 82. Constitutional Court Judgment 0101/2004 of September 14, 2004. Attachment to the petitioners’ brief of September 23, 2004. 181 Annex 44. Brief signed by Dr. Félix Santiago Ugarte M., District Attorney a.i., addressed to the President and Members of the Second Criminal Chamber of the La Paz Judicial District Superior Court, March 2004. Information that the petitioners supplied during the working meeting held at IACHR headquarters in November 2006 and forwarded to the State via a communication dated December 12, 2006. 182 Annex 38. La Paz District Superior Court, May 12, 2006, Report to Dr. Ricardo Alarcón Pozo, President of the District Superior Court, signed by Dr. Dora Villarroel de Lira, Member, Second Criminal Chamber, Superior Court, La Paz-Bolivia. Attachment to the State’s brief of June 28, 2006. 183 Annex 38. La Paz District Superior Court, May 12, 2006, Report to Dr. Ricardo Alarcón Pozo, President of the District Superior Court, signed by Dr. Dora Villarroel de Lira, Member, Second Criminal Chamber, Superior Court, La Paz-Bolivia. Attachment to the State’s brief of June 28, 2006. 184 Annex 38. La Paz District Superior Court, May 12, 2006, Report to Dr. Ricardo Alarcón Pozo, President of the District Superior Court, signed by Dr. Dora Villarroel de Lira, Member, Second Criminal Chamber, Superior Court, La Paz-Bolivia. Attachment to the State’s brief of June 28, 2006. 185 Annex 45. Resolución No. 90/2005, Second Criminal Chamber of the District Superior Court, September 9, 2005. Information that the petitioners supplied during the working meeting held at IACHR headquarters in November 2006 and forwarded to the State via a communication dated December 12, 2006.