acted as the crime scene surveyor and photographer.22 The record describing this search indicates that inside a cesspit, they found: (...) a newborn at term, without umbilical cord as it seemed torn, with no apparent genetic defect (...) male (...) dead for approximately 24 hours, cause of death to be determined by a forensic autopsy, as the body was transferred to the forensic medical department of the city of San Miguel.23 49. That same day, an examination of the alleged victim’s genitals was conducted by a forensic doctor, the report on which stated as follows: The umbilical cord with its vessels (two veins, one artery) clean cut, not torn. Based on this, the patient’s condition verifies a birth outside the hospital, if not to term then very close, with indications of preeclampsia (hypertension during pregnancy).24 50. The Commission underscores the difference between the report on the genital examination conducted on February 28 at 9 a.m.,25 which finds that the umbilical cord had a clean cut and was not torn, compared to the report of the visual inspection conducted that same day at 11:30, which found the opposite.26 51. the following: That same day, the Forensic Medical Institute performed an autopsy on the body, which found External and internal examination of the body revealed the following: The umbilical cord was observed to have been torn out at its base, and feces were removed from the nose and mouth. The cadaver was decomposing rapidly due to the fecal materials, the heat in the pit, and the moisture. Internally, feces were found to be obstructing the upper airways, visual examination of the lungs found both lungs were fully expanded in the thoracic cavity, while the hydrostatic test came back positive for air. This demonstrates that the child was born alive and breathing. The cause of death was mechanical asphyxiation due to obstruction of the airways by feces and severe bleeding from the navel.27 52. The casefile also includes a complaint from the father of the alleged victim in which he stated “feeling ashamed because the husband is in the United States, but his daughter told her she became pregnant by another man” and that “he feels sorry for his daughter because [her husband] never would have wanted to get rid of the child.”28 The Commission notes that the complaint is signed with a finger print and that the alleged victim’s father does not know how to read or write. According to the petitioner, the father of the alleged victim was pressured to place his fingerprint on the document, but with no explanation of its contents. The State did not address this allegation. There is no indication in the casefile of any inquiry into this. 2. Detention of the alleged victim and subsequent investigative steps Annex 6. Criminal case file TS066/2008. Record of visual inspection of February 28, 2008. Annex 2 to the initial petition of March 21, 2012, pg. 12. 23 Annex 6. Criminal case file TS066/2008. Record of visual inspection of February 28, 2008. Annex 2 to the initial petition of March 21, 2012, pg. 13. 24 Annex 7. Criminal case file TS066/2008. Medical Forensic Examination Report of the Forensic Medical Institute of February 28, 2008, Annex 2 to the initial petition of March 21, 2012, pg. 96.1. 25 Annex 7. Criminal case file TS066/2008. Medical Forensic Examination Report of the Forensic Medicine Institute of February 28, 2008, Annex 2 to the initial petition of March 21, 2012, pg. 96.1. 26 Annex 5. Criminal case file TS066/2008.Record of visual inspection of February 28, 2008. Annex 2 to the initial petition of March 21, 2012, pg. 13. 27 Annex 8. Criminal case file TS066/2008. Autopsy of February 28, 2008. Annex 2 to the initial petition of March 21, 2012, pgs. 82-83.1. 28 Annex 9. Criminal case file TS066/2008. Official document of the complaint from Manuela’s father of February 28, 2008. Annex 2 to the initial petition of March 21, 2012, pgs. 7 and 7.1. 22 8