193. On June 27, 2000, an internal audit report of the Government of La Paz was issued, which found evidence of criminal culpability in the case of former Mayor Germán Monroy Chazarreta, Ms. María Nine Lupe del Rosario Andrade Salmón, former President of the City Council, and three La Paz city government officials, who allegedly committed the crimes established in articles 154 (dereliction of duty) and 221 (contracts detrimental to the State’s interests) of the Penal Code; it also found evidence of criminal wrongdoing on the part of ESIN’s legal representative.247 That audit report suggested that a criminal complaint be brought against the above-named persons, a suggestion supported by Legal Report ALAI Nº 021/2000 of June 21, 2000, the report of the Office of the Manager of Legal Services dated September 29, 2000, and the Report of the Sub Comptroller of Legal Services, dated January 17, 2001. Based on the recommendations made in those reports, on January 31, 2001 the Auditing Manager and the Sub Comptroller of Internal Audits recommended to the then Mayor that the Legal Office be instructed to file a report with the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic concerning the status of the criminal case against the abovenamed persons, in compliance with Article 27(g) of Law 1178, Article 45 of the Regulations approved by Supreme Decree No. 23215 and Article 66 of the Regulations approved in Supreme Decree No. 23318-A.248 194. On May 10, 2002, the First Criminal Examining Judge of the District Superior Court of La Paz ordered a criminal investigation of Maria Nina Lupe del Rosario Andrade Salmón and four other officials in the Mayor’s Office as he found that their conduct fit the crimes established in articles 154 (dereliction of duty) and 221 (contracts prejudicial to the State’s interests) of the Penal Code; he also ordered that the ESIN representative be investigated for other crimes.249 195. Formal charges250 were brought on September 20, 2004 and by December 2005, oral arguments were being heard and the defendants were making their statements; the precautionary measures ordered for the defendants in this case did not include incarceration, so they were at liberty.251 By June 26, 2006, the case had been sent to the La Paz District Attorney’s Office for an opinion on the appeal filed against Resolution No. 26/2006 which ordered that all the proceedings be nullified until a new final instruction decision was issued. The case was awaiting the start of oral arguments.252 196. In February 2012, the petitioners reported that the case was closed after the charge brought against Ms. Andrade was rejected. However, they did not indicate when the case was closed or the reasons why the charges were thrown out. In March 2012, the State reported that Ms. Andrade Salmón is not involved in this case. 197. Regarding the negotiation process opened for a possible friendly settlement, the Commission observes that during the processing of this petition, the Commission placed itself at the parties’ disposal with a view to reaching a friendly settlement of the matter pursuant to Article 48(1)(f) of the American Convention, and that on December 22, 2004, the parties signed a friendly settlement agreement.253 Subsequently, on December 13, 2005, in view of the claims made by the parties during a working meeting 247 Annex 94. IL/R009/L00, Evaluation of Internal Audit Report No.AIE-046/2000 of the Government of La Paz, dated January 31, 2001. Attachment to the State’s brief of June 14, 2004. 248 Annex 94. IL/R009/L00, Evaluation of Internal Audit Report No.AIE-046/2000 of the Government of La Paz, dated January 31, 2001. Attachment to the State’s brief of June 14, 2004 249 Annex 95. Resolution No. 062/2002, dated May 10, 2002, signed by the First Criminal Examining Judge of the La Paz District Superior Court. Attachment to the State’s brief of June 14, 2004. 250 Annex 97. Report of Dr. René Arzabe Soruco, Case Prosecutor, to Dr. Jorge Gutiérrez Reque, La Paz District Attorney, November 23, 2005.. Annex to the petitioners’ brief of March 26, 2006. 251 Annex 98. Brief signed by Fernando Mita Barrientos, Case Prosecutor, La Paz District Attorney, to Mr. Jorge Gutierrez Roque, District Attorney, December 1, 2005. Attachment to the petitioners’ brief of March 26, 2006. 252 Annex 96.Report from Dr. Elías Fernando Ganam Cortez, La Paz District Attorney a.i., to Dr. Pedro Gareca Perales, Attorney General of the Republic, dated June 26, 2006. Attachment to the State’s brief of March 26, 2006. 253 See communication received from the petitioners on April 7, 2005.