response, on April 29, 1992, the Institute of Forensic Medicine forwarded the list of medical and paramedical personnel in charge of performing the autopsies.328 223. In a letter of March 30, 1992, the Director of the Institute of Legal Medicine forwarded to the judge in the case a photocopy of the university degrees of Mercedes Celina Doretti, Patricia Bernardi and Luis Bernardo Fondebrider, which had been provided by Tutela Legal del Arzobispado. In addition, he advised that the team of the Institute of Forensic Medicine was ready to perform the necessary autopsies and laboratory tests.329 On April 1, 1992, the trial judge requested the authentication of these degrees in keeping with Salvadoran law, “so that they could participate legally as supplementary expert witnesses.”330 On April 22, 1992, the judge confirmed receipt of the authenticated degrees, 331 and established April 29, 1992, as the date for the appointment and swearing in of these expert witnesses.332 On April 28, 1992, a “Delegation of the Communities of Northern [Morazán], accompanied by journalists and hundreds of persons” requested a hearing with the trial judge so that he could explain why the proceedings “were not advanc[ing] procedurally” as well as “the reasons why the Argentine anthropologists proposed by Tutela Legal had not been sworn in.”333 The hearing was granted the same day.334 On April 29, 1992, the trial judge appointed the above-mentioned professionals as supplementary expert witnesses so that they could act as “Technical Cooperators” during the exhumations. That same day Mercedes Doretti and Patricia Bernardi were sworn in.335 On April 30, 1992, expert witness Mercedes Celina Doretti submitted the “Suggested work plan,” to the trial judge, who indicated that it had been delivered to the Director of the Institute of Forensic Medicine on February 7, 1992.336 On October 13, 1992, Luis Bernardo Fondebrider was sworn in.337 224. In a press communiqué of April 8, 1992, the Oficina de Tutela Legal del Arzobispado denounced irregularities that, in its opinion, had been committed in the investigations up to that moment. Among the irregularities, it denounced that the trial judge “[o]n May 8, 1991, when the testimonial evidence in the proceedings abundantly confirmed the responsibility of the Armed Forces in the murders, […] suspended the examination of witnesses temporarily, indicating that he would devote himself to taking measures to verify the corpus delicti, such as the inspection of the scene of the events, exhumations and autopsies of the corpses of the victims. These measures had been ordered in the proceedings since November 9, 1990; however, [at that] date they ha[d] not been taken, despite their importance. Meanwhile, the suspension of the examination of witnesses had continued without any legal reason that [would] 328 Cf. Brief of the “Dr. Roberto Masferrer” Institute of Forensic Medicine filed before the Second First Instance Court of San Francisco Gotera on April 29, 1992 (evidence file, tome III, annex 23 to the submission of the case, folios 1880 to 1884). 329 Cf. Communication of the Director of the Institute of Forensic Medicine, addressed to Second First Instance Judge of San Francisco Gotera, of March 30, 1992 (evidence file, tome III, annex 23 to the submission of the case, folio 1824). 330 Decision issued by the Second First Instance Court of San Francisco Gotera on April 1, 1992 (evidence file, tome III, annex 23 to the submission of the case, folio 1843). 331 Cf. Decision issued by the Second First Instance Court of San Francisco Gotera on April 22, 1992 (evidence file, tome III, annex 23 to the submission of the case, folio 1869). 332 Cf. Decision issued by the Second First Instance Court of San Francisco Gotera on April 22, 1992 (evidence file, tome III, annex 23 to the submission of the case, folio 1870. 333 Decision issued by the Second First Instance Court of San Francisco Gotera on April 28, 1992 (evidence file, tome III, annex 23 to the submission of the case, folio 1873). 334 Cf. Decision issued by the Second First Instance Court of San Francisco Gotera on April 28, 1992 (evidence file, tome III, annex 23 to the submission of the case, folio 1873). 335 Cf. Decision issued by the Second First Instance Court of San Francisco Gotera on April 29, 1992 (evidence file, tome III, annex 23 to the submission of the case, folios 1877 to 1879). 336 Cf. Communication of Mercedes Celina Doretti, addressed to the Second First Instance Judge of San Francisco Gotera, of April 30, 1992 (evidence file, tome III, annex 23 to the submission of the case, folios 1886 to 1887). 337 Cf. Decision issued by the Second First Instance Court of San Francisco Gotera on October 13, 1992 (evidence file, tome IV, annex 23 to the submission of the case, folio 2416). 72