9 Four samples were received: Sample 1, taken on July 27, 2000, marked [TGGL], (laboratory code X00453) Sample 2, taken on July 27, 2000, marked D.I 170686285-9 (laboratory code X00454) Sample 3, taken on July 27, 2000, marked D.I 01-0110340-6 (laboratory code X00455) Sample 4, taken on July 27, 2000, marked D.I 01-0097287-6 (laboratory code X00456) (…) The four samples were clearly positive. (…) Sample No. 4 was not pursued. (…) Three samples (1, 2, and 3) have sufficient viral RNA to perform a nucleotide sequence (…). Based on this limited sequence, we concluded that samples 1 and 2 were identical, and that sample 3 is genetically different to samples 1 and 2. 39 (Unofficial translation). 40. After this report was issued, the two medical expert witnesses Peralvo and Vivar issued a supplementary experts’ report stating that on the basis of the University of Louvain’s report “the same virus affected the blood samples of the two people”, that is the child TGGL and the person whose blood sample was marked as number 2, that is, HS. They added that “HIV could only have been transmitted to the girl [TGGL] from the person identified as 170686285-9 via two pathways: sexual transmission or from contaminated blood products emanating from this person.” In concluding their report they stated that “if the court investigations have excluded sexual transmission, medical logic draws the inevitable conclusion that the only means of spreading HIV to the child [TGGL] was a blood transfusion.”40 41. They explained the significance of these findings in the following terms: “the dissimilarity of two viruses is proportional to the time elapsed when the two viruses separated from a common ascendant. The closer the epidemiological link between two individuals infected with HIV, the more similar will be the viruses of these two individuals. This experimental diagnosis is a basic concept of the molecular epidemiology of the HIV virus, allowing us to understand the epidemiological relationships based on the genetic data of viruses.41 42. In response to the question as to whether the University of Louvain report is “irrefutable” as evidence confirming that the infection occurred via the blood transfusion coming from the Red Cross, the expert witnesses quoted doctrine to the effect that: “in many cases, as in cases of proving the transmission of HIV, the genetic data provides the only reliable evidence of direct epidemiological links between the infections. As well as purely scientific undertakings, genetic analysis has been used in various cases as legal evidence to support potential criminal HIV infections. In legal cases, genetic testing can be used in conjunction with other types of evidence to decide whether transmission occurred with a certainty beyond reasonable doubt.”42 39 Annex 2. Court File. Second Criminal Court of Cuenca. Incorporated into Annex 1, Court File. Civil Action No. 323 05. Superior Court of Justice of Cuenca. First Chamber. Report of the University of Louvain. Folios 124 and 125. 40 Annex 2. Court File. Second Criminal Court of Cuenca. Incorporated into Annex 1, Court File. Civil Action No. 323 05. Superior Court of Justice of Cuenca. First Chamber. Expert witnesses’ Report of March 9, 2001. Folio 135. 41 Annex 2. Court File. Second Criminal Court of Cuenca. Incorporated into Annex 1, Court File. Civil Action No. 323 05. Superior Court of Justice of Cuenca. First Chamber. Response of the Expert Witnesses Peralvo and Vivar of July xx, 2001. Folios 176 - 185. 42 Annex 2. Court File. Second Criminal Court of Cuenca. Incorporated into Annex 1, Court File. Civil Action No. 323 05. Superior Court of Justice of Cuenca. First Chamber. Response of the Expert Witnesses Peralvo and Vivar of July xx, 2001. Folios 176 - 185.