297. The Commission considers that in the criminal proceeding it is up to the State to give impetus to it with the proper guarantees, both to safeguard the rights of the persons accused and for the victims, and to protect the interests of society in general. The facts of the instant case demonstrate that the State did not comply with that obligation with respect to Ms. Andrade Salmón and, to the contrary, did not perform significant procedural acts with the aim of determining her legal situation. 298. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that in the instant case the State violated the right of Ms. Andrade to be tried in a reasonable term as established in Article 8(1) of the Convention in relation to Article 1(1) of that instrument. 2. The Street Lamps Case 299. In the criminal proceeding known as Street Lamps, the first act in the procedure against Ms. Andrade Salmón occurred on December 22, 1999, when the Report of the Deputy Comptroller of Legal Services of the Office of the General Comptroller of the Republic, in which it was indicated that the alleged liability of Ms. Andrade as former chairperson of the Municipal Council stemmed from the fact that she had not sought the opinion of the Legal and Technical Committees, was presented. Consequently the report recommended that the investigative offices of the Public Prosecutor’s Office determine whether Ms. Andrade Salmón was criminally liable. The Commission notes that according to the facts proven the proceeding has not concluded to date, since even though charges against Ms. Andrade Salmón were preliminary dismissed on November 22, 2008, and this judgment was confirmed appeal on January 9, 2010, the municipality of La Paz, on February 19, 2011, asked that the proceeding be reopened, and the request was granted. 300. The Commission notes that while the State alleges that the proceeding was complex due to there being many accused (approximately 17 persons including Ms. Andrade), as well as the filing of many motions by them, which was permitted by the legislation in force, it has not pointed to any other factors to justify its complexity. According to the information available to the Commission in the record, the trial of Ms. Andrade was carried out in 2000 because of her signature as chairperson of the Municipal Council of the Municipal Council resolution that approved the contract for the acquisition of Chinese street lamps on August 3, 1998, and still in 2012 her legal situation has not been resolved. 301. In relation to the conduct of the authorities, the Commission observes that on March 25, 2004, the 8th District Judge (Liquidador) annulled the judge’s final decision in the investigative proceeding on December 11, 2002, based on the judgment of the Constitutional Court of March 31, 2003, that resolved that the right to defense of several of the co-accused had been violated, i.e. setting the proceedings back more than a year and three months. In addition, the Commission has not been informed of the procedural activities from January 12, 2004, when the Second Criminal District Court (Liquidador) declared that there was no basis for the request for extinction of the criminal action in favor of Ms. Andrade Salmón and four other co-accused, and November 22, 2008, when the decision of preliminary dismissal of the charges against Ms. Andrade was handed down, i.e. for more than four years. 302. The Commission considers that the State has not proven that the alleged complexity of the proceeding and the activity of Ms. Andrade had justified the delay in the proceeding for more than 11 years. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that in the instant case the right to be tried in a reasonable time was violated to the detriment of Ms. Andrade Salmón. 3. Guaglio Case, or Pensions Case 303. In the criminal proceeding known as Fraud on the Office of the Director General of Pensions (Estafa a la Dirección de Pensiones), the first procedural act against Ms. Andrade took place on February 17, 2000, when the prosecutor presented the accusation against Ms. Andrade for the alleged crime of dereliction of duties. The criminal proceeding ended on October 27, 2011, i.e. after 11 years and eight months had elapsed, when the Supreme Court issued a judgment in cassation upholding the conviction handed down on