report, the corpse of Carlos Horacio Urán was brought to the Institute of Forensic Medicine on November 7 at 7 p.m. 531 B.2.c) Autopsies performed on the body of Carlos Horacio Urán Rojas 345. The record corresponding to the removal of the corpse of Carlos Horacio Urán Rojas indicates the death of a male on November 7, 1985, at 3 p.m. The removal was carried out from the patio of the Palace of Justice, but it was noted that the position of the body was “unnatural.” 532 The autopsy report was prepared on November 8. 533 Subsequently, in 2010, the body was exhumed, another autopsy was performed and, in February 2011, the National Institute of Forensic Medicine prepared an appraisal of the autopsies performed on this corpse. 534 346. The reports on the autopsies of the body of Mr. Urán Rojas indicate that it revealed various injuries including: injuries from an explosive device, injuries to the face, injuries to the lower extremities, and an injury to the head from a gunshot. 535 The last of these injuries was identified as the cause of death of Carlos Horacio Urán Rojas in the 1985 autopsy report, and this was confirmed in the 2011 appraisal report. 536 Nevertheless, this last report explains that the injuries to the spinal cord should be added to this cause of death. 537 Also, even though, in general, the more recent analyses confirm the 1985 findings, there are differences between them; particularly, with regard to injuries that were not described in the 1985 autopsy report, as well as differences of interpretation as to the cause of some injuries and their precise location. In this regard, the 2011 appraisal notes that: There are discrepancies between the findings of the two procedures; there are injuries that are the same in the two reports, but […] there are other injuries that are not described in the first one, but that have left objective evidence in the osseous remains and there is no explanation for these discrepancies, unless it is accepted that, in the initial autopsy, a complete examination of all the structures was not made, which would indicate that some sets of injuries were overlooked that are still evident in the osseous remains. 538 531 Cf. Autopsy report No. 3783-85 (evidence file, folio 15974). 532 Cf. Record of removal of corpse No. 1128 (evidence file, folio 20175). 533 Cf. Autopsy report No. 3783-85 (evidence file, folios 15974 to 15980). 534 Cf. Forensic appraisal of autopsy of February 11, 2011 (evidence file, folio 15900). 535 Cf. Autopsy report No. 3783-85 (evidence file, folio 15976); Record of removal of corpse No. 1128 (evidence file, folio 20176), and report on autopsy appraisal of February 11, 2011 (evidence file, folios 15905 and 15906). 536 Cf. Autopsy report No. 3783-85 (evidence file, folio 15975), and report on autopsy appraisal of February 11, 2011 (evidence file, folios 15909 and 15910). 537 According to this report, even when “the cause of death must be confirmed, in the sense of affirming that it was due to the cerebral laceration caused by the bullet of a firearm, […] this should be added to the considerations on the neurological damage arising from the possible, but very probable, effects on the upper cervical spinal cord.” “Death was due to the combination of the physio-pathological phenomena of central neuralgic origin, owing to both the evident structural damage to the brain, and to the functional damage that could be extrapolated to the spinal cord.” Report on autopsy appraisal of February 11, 2011 (evidence file, folios 15909 and 15910). 538 Regarding the injuries that were not described in the initial autopsy report, the 2011 report indicates that: “there is no specific description of any injury to the right shoulder, or any effects on the thorax. The skeleton reveals a highenergy injury to that bone but it is not possible to establish with certainty whether it is an injury from a bullet or for some other high-energy mechanism.” Also there is no “specific description of any injury to the left femur and the closest approximation to injuries in this place is described among the injuries caused by fragments of an explosive device. The skeleton reveals a comminuted fracture caused by a bullet.” In addition, “[r]egarding the injuries to the right hand, the initial report considered them to be the secondary effect of the explosive device, while the actual anthropological report has considered them to be produced by a bullet.” It also indicates that the differences in interpretation are due to the fact that some injuries were initially considered to be the secondary effects of fragments of an explosive device, while, in the skeleton they have been considered secondary effects of bullets. Cf. Report on autopsy appraisal of February 11, 2011 (evidence file, folios 15908 to 15911). 120