or Fraud on the Office of the Director General for Pensions), Ms. Andrade was sentenced to three years in prison, which is currently suspended. 277. The Commission notes that as has been established in the facts proven, Ms. Andrade Salmón has been prevented from leaving the country and La Paz for more than 10 years. The Commission considers that the duration of this restriction does not meet the requirement of proportionality with the aim pursued, which is the keep the person facing trial from fleeing, and that in the event that she is convicted, from serving the sentence imposed, since the measure prohibiting her from leaving the court’s jurisdiction has been in place for a time longer than the penalty that she could face if convicted. 278. The Commission clearly considers that the State did not meet the requirements of legality, necessity, and proportionality in a democratic society when issuing and maintaining the measure prohibiting Ms. Andrade from leaving the court’s jurisdiction. 279. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that in the instant case, an in relation to the criminal proceedings captioned Gader and Street Lamps, the State has violated Article 7(5) of the American Convention in relation to Articles 1(1), 21, and 22(2) and 22(3) of the American Convention to the detriment of Ms. Andrade Salmón. B. Right to be tried in a reasonable time (Article 8 of the American Convention) in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument 280. Article 8(1) of the American Convention establishes, in the pertinent part, the following minimum guarantees: 1. Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature. 281. The Commission has indicated previously that Article 8 of the Convention “includes different rights and guarantees flowing from a common juridical asset or good and which considered as a whole constitute a single right not specifically defined but whose unequivocal purpose is definitely to ensure the right of everyone to a fair trial.”305 282. The Commission recalls that it is a basic principle of the law on the international responsibility of the State, reflected international human rights law, that every state is internationally responsible for acts or omissions of any of its branches or organs that violate rights enshrined in international instruments, as per Article 1(1) of the American Convention.306 283. As regards the possibility of the organs of the system analyzing domestic proceedings, the Inter-American Court has established as follows: [I]n order to clarify whether the State has violated its international obligations owing to the acts of its judicial organs, [the Commission and the Court] may have to examine the respective domestic proceedings. In light of the above, the domestic proceedings must be 305 306 IACHR. Report No. 5/96, Case 10,970, Raquel Martín de Mejía, Peru, March 1, 1996. I/A Court H.R., Case of Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2006. Series C No. 149, para. 172, Case of Baldeón García v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, para. 140; I/A Court H.R., Case of Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, paras. 111 and 112; and I/A Court H.R., Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 108.