64. Statements were taken from the persons presented by the plaintiffs, as well as from Oscar Dario Almada, Romina Bairo, Analía Masello, Fernando Ibarra, Wagner Da Luz, Marcelo Da Luz, Claudio Abbondanza, Claudio Cervera, Omar Ojeda, Humberto Echegaray, Carlos William Chagas, Guillermo Brizuela Barros, Diego Posada, Zulma Orellana, Domingo Oliva, Darío Almada, Marcelino Lezcano, González Alfredo, and Fernández Roberto. Relevant contents of some of the statements were cited in the foregoing section of this report. 65. On April 25, 1996, the investigating judge, Raúl Eduardo Irigoyen, ruled that "the aforementioned hypotheses having been disproved, the undersigned reached the inexorable conclusion that no crime exists in this docket. I therefore RESOLVE to archive this proceeding No. 22.190/96, where no crime is discernible."85 66. As regards the request by Mrs. Martínez for expert tests to be carried out on her son's clothes, it is to be noted that in the same minutes of the file, the judge declared "It is worth noting the insistence of the plaintiffs [...] regarding the clothes the deceased had been wearing, the state of which is irrelevant given the evidence accumulated.- Indeed, the same doctor who had been in direct contact with José Acosta in Police Stat, so that the stains on the pants are just dirtiness; nor are the remarks about the shirt relevant [...]."86 67. The plaintiffs asked for the case to be reopened, especially since the conclusions of the autopsy performed in Uruguay "add to the doubts about the causes of José Delfín Acosta Martínez's death [...]."87 On May 12, 1998, an order was issued to reopen the investigation, in order to elicit a new forensic report by a Medical Board. That report was issued on June 26 of the same year, as mentioned in the foregoing section. 68. On July 17, 1998, the plaintiffs challenged the Medical Board's report because in their view "the forensic doctors based their case on facts that cannot be considered proven, but when taken to be proven alter the vision of what happened [...] the forensic experts cannot based their case exclusively on data taken from police inquiries, without scientifically proving why they based their view on them [...]."88 On October 21, 1998, the Medical Board -- including the expert representing the plaintiffs -- replied to the queries regarding their first report, as detailed in the foregoing section.89 The plaintiff's expert also replied to the questions put to him personally.90 69. On November 17, 1998, the plaintiffs asked for another Medical Board to be formed with members of the Gendarmería Nacional. They also asked the investigating judge to delve deeper into the case as there were "sufficient contradictions as to what actually happened."91 On December 23, 1998, at the request of the plaintiffs, Marcelo Gonçalves Da Luz submitted a statement regarding the statements by Fresco and Brotzman, indicating that "at no time did he say...the things they say I said. Specifically, he says that [...] neither the declarant nor his brother Wagner were hit or maltreated by the police, who had simply driven them to the police station in the patrol car [...[ that neither the declarant nor his brother had seen the police hit or mistreat the "bald guy."92 The plaintiffs asked that Marcelo Da Luz be summonsed again to make a statement in the presence of the plaintiffs because they had not been notified or summoned to attend the hearing in which said declarant had rendered his testimony.93 The court ruled that request groundless.94 70. Worth underscoring is the statement made by Andrés Alberto Fresco on September 2, 1998, in which he was asked about José Delfín Acosta's condition at the time of the detention and he replied "yes, he struck me as coherent, which is why I said earlier that he was not under the effects of any stimulant." He added Appendix 17. The National Judiciary. Minutes in the file of April 25, 1996. Attached to the initial petition. Appendix 17. The National Judiciary. Minutes in the file of April 25, 1996. Attached to the initial petition. 87 Appendix 36. Request to reopen the case, undated. Attached to the initial petition. 88 Appendix 46. Challenge to the report by the Medical Board filed by the plaintiffs, July 17, 1998. Attached to the initial petition. 89 Appendix 48. Report by the Medical Board on October 21, 1998. Attached to the initial petition. 90 Appendix 49. Report by Dr. Hugo Ricardo Nandin of October 27, 1998. Attached to the initial petition. 91 Appendix 50. Remarks and requests for measures by the plaintiffs, November 17, 1998. Attached to the initial petition. 92 Appendix 51. Statement by Wagner Gonçalves Da Luz on Wednesday, December 23, 1998. Attached to the initial petition. 93 Appendix 53. Writ by the plaintiffs, March 9, 1999. Attached to the initial petition. 94 Appendix 54. Verdict by the National Criminal Court of First Instance No. 10 on March 25, 1999. Attached to the initial petition. 85 86