26 Service medical doctor.246 The judge scheduled a hearing for August 27, 2003, 247 which was not held “because of the excuses submitted by fax by the Public Prosecution Service medical examiner.”248 84. The evidence hearing was held on August 29, 2003.249 85. The first to be questioned was the judiciary medical examiner, who said that he “[had] noted a marked deterioration in [the] health [of Ms. Chinchilla…], since she [suffers from] […] DIABETES MELLITUS, and […] all the complications associated with this disease have presented themselves, [they being] arterial hypertension, […] occlusive arteriosclerotic disease of the left lower limb, […] diabetic retinopathy, in addition to which she has already had the right lower limb amputated […]. Furthermore, she has cancer of the cervix that is not connected with the diabetes.” The doctor indicated that “[her] treatment is with insulin taken via intramuscular injection” and he “[did] not know if it was administered to her at the clinic.” As to whether she had a terminal illness, he said, “No, but in light of the complications associated with the illness ... her life is in danger ... The most serious one is a diabetic coma.” He said that “if she [did] not have her medicine, the complications would be more accentuated.” 86. The attending physician at the HSJD said, “at this moment, just by looking at her, [Ms. Chinchilla is not at risk of dying].” He said that he was “not familiar with the conditions where she live[d] and so [he was] unable to say [if she could receive ambulatory treatment].” He said that he did “not know if she injected herself with insulin or if someone else did.” The doctor answered “yes” when asked if the possibility existed of instantaneous death and “probably” to the question as to whether or not the interval of 15 days between her medical visits could result in her death if she did not receive care. With regard to the “cervical cancer” he said that “[he did] not know.” Finally, he said that internal occlusive arteriosclerosis is a terminal illness. 87. The medical examiner from the Public Prosecution Service replied “no” when asked if Ms. Chinchilla had a terminal disease. He said that he was “unable to say [if she received treatment] because to do so [he] would need information on what resources the institution has.” He mentioned that “the care that the patient needs is as follows[:] regular monitoring of blood sugar levels, for someone to keep track of when she takes her medication, for someone to move her around and, depending on the complications that she might suffer, to verify if the Center has equipment or access to examinations by a consultant.” He added that “at the time that she was examined her condition was under control” and that he had “not stated that the patient ha[d] what [was] needed for her illnesses to be properly controlled.” He said that terminal occlusive arteriosclerosis was not a terminal disease but “a complication from diabetes in this case that has not been adequately controlled.” He said that gangrene “is an infectious pathology that can kill a patient if the right 246 The latter indicated that the patient “suffers from systematic illnesses that have no cure but can be controlled through regularly administered medications”; those systematic illnesses “are going to cause a gradual deterioration in the patient and therefore, unless said patient meets with an accidental death she will die of a complication from one of these illnesses.” It is impossible to predict when that will happen since “she is controlled.” It also stated that “the patient could stay at the Center provided she takes her medication regularly and receives conscientious care from the medical and paramedic staff assigned to this institution” Appendix 2. Incidental Motions for Early Release. Republic of Guatemala Judiciary Second Criminal Enforcement Court Final Decision No. 429-96 Of. 7. Sentence Remission Case No. 169-03. Written communication from the Public Prosecution Service Medical Examiner, June 6, 2003. Marked as Page 4. Appendix 3 to the initial petition. 247 Appendix 2. Republic of Guatemala Judiciary Second Criminal Enforcement Court Final Decision No. 429-96 Of. 7. Sentence Remission Case No. 169-03. 7º Decision of the Second Criminal Enforcement Court of August 18, 2003. Page 26. Appendix 3 to the initial petition. 248 Appendix 2. Republic of Guatemala Judiciary Second Criminal Enforcement Court Final Decision No. 429-96 Of. 7. Sentence Remission Case No. 169-03. Judiciary Written communication from the secretary of the the Second Criminal Enforcement Court, August 27, 2003. Page 32. Appendix 3 to the initial petition. 249 Appendix 2. Republic of Guatemala Judiciary Second Criminal Enforcement Court Final Decision No. 429-96 Of. 7. Sentence Remission Case No. 169-03. Judiciary Record of Evidence Hearing August 29, 2003. Pages 47-54. Appendix 3 to the initial petition.