Board Resolution No. 116/2026

BOARD BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 116/2026 SUBJECT: BOARD - APPEAL FOR REVOCATION AGAINST BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 86/2026 THAT MODIFIES THE LIQUIDITY CREDIT REGULATIONS FOR THE PRODUCTIVE DEVELOPMENT BANK MIXED JOINT STOCK COMPANY

SEEN: The Political Constitution of the State of February 7, 2009. Law No. 1670 of October 31, 1995, of the Central Bank of Bolivia (BCB) and its modifications. Law No. 2341 of April 23, 2002, on Administrative Procedure. The Liquidity Credit Regulations for the Banco de Desarrollo Productivo Mixed Joint Stock Company approved by Board Resolution No. 7/2021 of January 11, 2021 and its modifications. Board Resolution No. 86/2026 of June 23, 2026, which modifies articles 5 and 7 of the Liquidity Credit Regulations for the Banco de Desarrollo Productivo Mixed Joint Stock Company. The Appeal for Revocation filed by the Regional Research and Development Center Financial Institution - CIDRE IFD on July 6, 2026. The Statute of the BCB approved by Board Resolution No. 85/2026 of June 23, 2026. Report BCB-APEC-SPMEE-INF-2026-32 of July 17, 2026, from the Economic Policy Advisory (APEC) and the Financial Entities Management (GEF). Report BCB-GAL-SANO-DLBCI-INF-2026-194 of July 24, 2026, from the Legal Affairs Management (GAL).

CONSIDERING: That the Political Constitution of the State, in its articles 327 and 328, establishes that the BCB is a public law institution, with legal personality and its own assets, and that, within the framework of the State's economic policy, it is the function of the BCB to maintain the stability of the internal purchasing power of the currency to contribute to economic and social development; and it has as attributes, in coordination with the economic policy determined by the Executive Branch, in addition to those indicated by law, to determine and execute monetary policy, execute exchange rate policy, regulate the payment system, authorize the issuance of currency and manage international reserves.

That Law No. 1670 in its articles 1, 2, 3 and 30 provides that the BCB is the sole monetary and exchange authority of the country, with administrative, technical and financial competence and specialized normative powers of general application. Its object is to seek the stability of the internal purchasing power of the national currency. The BCB will formulate policies of general application in monetary, exchange and payment system matters for the fulfillment of its object. All entities of the financial intermediation and financial services system whose operation is authorized by the ASFI are subject to the normative competence of the BCB.

That in articles 44 and 54 subsections a) and o), Law No. 1670 provides that the highest authority of the BCB is its Board, which is responsible for defining its policies, specialized normative rules of general application and internal rules; as well as establishing administrative, operational and financial strategies of the Issuing Entity, approving their respective short and medium-term programs. Likewise, it establishes that the Board has the attributes to issue the rules and adopt the general decisions that may be necessary for the BCB to fulfill the functions, competencies and powers assigned to it by the Law; as well as to approve, modify and interpret the Statute and Regulations of the BCB by two-thirds of the votes of all its members, without the need for an additional administrative act.

That article 55 of the aforementioned Law states that Board resolutions of the BCB may be challenged by any natural or legal person or competent organ of the State by filing an appeal for revocation with devolutive effect before the same Board within a period of thirty (30) days from the date on which the BCB made the Resolution known to the interested or affected persons. The Board must pronounce itself within the twenty (20) days following the filing of the appeal for revocation. If the Board does not pronounce itself within the period, the challenge will be understood as denied on the date of expiration of the period.

That Law No. 2341 in subsection a) of paragraph 1 of article 20 provides that if the period is set in days only administrative working days shall be counted; while in article 61 it determines that the administrative resources provided for in this Law will be resolved

BOARD //2. B.R. No. 116/2026 confirming or partially revoking the challenged resolution or, in its case, dismissing the appeal if it was filed out of time, did not meet the formalities expressly indicated in applicable provisions or if it did not meet the requirement of standing.

That the Statute of the BCB, in paragraphs 1 and 3 of article 6 and paragraphs 1, 22 and 43 of article 11, determines that the BCB has normative and technical competence and that its Board has as attributes: to approve general decisions and issue the rules that may be necessary for the BCB to fulfill the functions, competencies and powers assigned to it by the Law; to approve, modify and interpret the Statute and Regulations of the BCB; and to resolve appeals for revocation, within the legal periods provided.

CONSIDERING: That by Board Resolution No. 86/2026, the Highest Authority of the BCB resolved to approve modifications to articles 5 and 7 of the Liquidity Credit Regulations for the Banco de Desarrollo Productivo Mixed Joint Stock Company, approved by Board Resolution No. 7/2021 of January 11, 2021 and its modifications.

That with the formalities and within the period established in article 55 of Law No. 1670, the Regional Research and Development Center Development Financial Institution (CIDRE IFD) presents an Appeal for Revocation against Board Resolution No. 86/2026 that modifies the Liquidity Credit Regulations for the Banco de Desarrollo Productivo Mixed Joint Stock Company, requesting to admit the appeal and issue a partial revocation resolution leaving without effect and revoking the allegedly restrictive phrase introduced in article 5 that subordinates the renewal of liquidity credits to the absence of sanctions for non-compliance with BCB regulations, as it is allegedly an illegal, disproportionate condition and violative of due process, that is, the following text is suppressed from the aforementioned article 5: "... and will proceed only for credit operations channeled in favor of IFD or CAC that do not have sanctions for non-compliance with BCB regulations at the time of requesting the renewal and during the validity of the operation."

That having reviewed the arguments of the appellant and considering the reports BCB-APEC-SPMEE-INF-2026-32 from APEC and GEF, BCB-GAL-SANO-DLBCI-INF-2026-194 from GAL, as well as the information and criteria expressed in the Board meeting, it is appropriate to state the following:

a) Presumed deviation of power and regulatory arbitrariness in chain Regarding the grievance referred to the alleged deviation of power attributed to Board Resolution No. 86/2026, it is necessary to point out that it lacks support, since the aforementioned Resolution did not restrict a pre-existing right to renew liquidity credits, but rather subjected the renewal to the fulfillment of objective eligibility conditions for entities with strict compliance conduct. Consequently, the incorporation of the requirement of not having been sanctioned for non-compliance with the regulations issued by the BCB does not constitute a measure intended to sanction or financially affect certain entities, but the establishment of conditions to access this mechanism of liquidity provision granted within the framework of the Liquidity Credit Regulations for the Banco de Desarrollo Productivo Mixed Joint Stock Company. The modification of article 5 of the aforementioned Regulation approved by Board Resolution No. 86/2026. exceptionally expands, with a temporary character, the number of renewals from 21 to 25, incorporating a condition and not a new sanctioning mechanism, but a prudential eligibility criterion for access to an extraordinary mechanism of liquidity provision, strengthening prudential discipline and incentives for adequate risk management by beneficiary entities, within the framework of the current monetary and exchange policy guideline oriented to preserve the extraordinary nature of BCB liquidity facilities, allowing access to extraordinary liquidity mechanisms to entities with regulatory compliance and prudential discipline, reducing incentives for adequate risk administration.

b) Alleged Violation of due process and prohibition of automatic sanctions The appellant raises as a grievance the alleged violation of due process, the presumption of innocence and the right to defense, regarding which, it is necessary to point out that Board Resolution No. 86/2026 does not regulate sanctioning procedures, does not establish infractions nor impose sanctions, limiting itself to setting conditions for the renewal of liquidity credits.

BOARD //3. B.R. No. 116/2026 Consequently, controversies related to sanctioning procedures and the guarantees that govern them correspond to the respective applicable legal regimes, without such aspects being attributable to the content of the challenged Resolution.

c) Alleged violation of the principle of non bis in idem and proportionality The appellant alleges violation of the non bis in idem and proportionality principles; to which it must be pointed out that the condition established by Board Resolution No. 86/2026 has a general character and is not linked to a specific infringement, constituting an objective eligibility requirement to access the renewal of liquidity credits and not an additional sanction derived from the same fact. Consequently, no configuration of a double sanction nor the violation of the principles invoked by the appellant is observed.

d) Notification to the Productive Development Bank - Mixed Joint Stock Company Regarding the request to dispose of the notification to the Productive Development Bank - Mixed Joint Stock Company with the appeal filed by CIDRE IFD object of the present resolution, it is necessary to point out that such petition is inadmissible, since normative resolutions issued by the BCB produce effects according to the legal regime that regulates them, without requiring additional administrative acts for their issuance or efficacy. Likewise, the applicable appeal procedure does not contemplate the issuance of instructions directed to entities unrelated to the appeal, lacking the requested measure of legal incidence on the validity or application of Board Resolution No. 86/2026.

Also, it must be taken into account that Board Resolution No. 86/2026 has been issued in the exercise of the normative power expressly attributed to the Board of the BCB by Law No. 1670. In effect, said Law provides that the Regulations of the Bank, as well as their modifications, are approved by the Board without the need for an additional administrative act, evidencing that Board Resolution does not have the purpose of resolving an individual legal situation, but to formally externalize a normative decision of general and abstract scope.

In that context, the request for notification to the BDP - S.A.M. is not legally possible since such intervention presupposes the existence of an administrative procedure in which subjective rights or legitimate interests of determined subjects susceptible to be affected by the administrative decision are debated. Such

BOARD //4. B.R. No. 116/2026 presupposition does not concur when the object of the appeal is a regulatory provision of a general character, whose efficacy is projected objectively and impersonally on an indeterminate universe of recipients and not on individualized legal relationships. Admitting the participation of interested third parties in the challenge of a regulatory norm would imply transferring an institution proper to administrative procedures of a particular nature to the realm of the exercise of regulatory power, denaturing both the challenge regime provided for by Law No. 1670 and the specialized normative competence conferred on the BCB.

Also, article 55 of Law No. 1670 expressly establishes that the appeal for revocation against Board resolutions is granted only with devolutive effect, so its filing does not suspend the validity, obligatoriness nor execution of the challenged act. Consequently, the request for suspension of the effects of Board Resolution No. 78/2026 is legally inadmissible.

That from the integral analysis of the grievances formulated, it is evident that these start from attributing to Board Resolution No. 86/2026 a sanctioning nature that does not emerge from its normative content. In effect, the aforementioned Resolution does not create infractions, does not establish sanctions nor modify the existing sanctioning regimes, limiting itself to regulating the conditions to access the renewal of liquidity credits. Consequently, the alleged legal and constitutional violations by the appellant are not evidenced, corresponding to dismiss the grievances formulated for lacking legal support.

That for the arguments exposed above, Board Resolution No. 86/2026 does not contravene the current legal order and is framed within the mandate, object, attributes, powers and functions of the BCB provided for in the Political Constitution of the State and Law No. 1670.

That in merit of article 55 of Law No. 1670, the Board of the BCB is empowered to resolve the Appeal for Revocation filed by CIDRE IFD.

THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF THE CENTRAL BANK OF BOLIVIA, RESOLVES: Article 1.- Deny the Appeal for Revocation filed on July 6, 2026 by the Regional Research and Development Center Financial Institution of Development (CIDRE IFD), against Board Resolution No. 86/2026 which in its article

BOARD //5. B.R. No. 116/2026 1 modifies article 5 of the Liquidity Credit Regulations for the Banco de Desarrollo Productivo Mixed Joint Stock Company, approved by Board Resolution No. 7/2021 and its modifications.

Article 2.- The Legal Affairs Management is charged with notifying this Resolution to the appellant at the procedural domicile indicated.

La Paz, July 28, 2026

SIGNED: DAVID IVAN ESPINOZA TORRICO, Claudia Haydee Pacheco Ayala, Walter Fernando Orellana Rocha, Alvaro Alfonso Romero Villavicencio.