Moreover, the petitioners assert that Manuela’s father, who is illiterate, was forced to sign a document that was later used as a complaint against his own daughter, which, according to them, was illegal under the Code of Criminal Procedure then in force, as it banned complaints against family members. Furthermore, they assert that the forensic doctor who saw Manuela at her house prepared reports with significant discrepancies, particularly regarding the condition of the umbilical cord. 4. They indicate that on February 28, Manuela was detained and handcuffed to the couch, spending eight days in custody; afterwards, she was taken to the police station of Morazán and later to the Pretrial Detention Center and Prison of San Miguel. They submit that she was discharged from the public hospital of San Francisco Gotera without having undergone a complete medical examination; that while in jail, she never had a medical examination and, whenever she complained of her pain, she was insulted for the facts she was accused of. They assert that in the casefile there is a police report of February 28 with several irregularities, such as the claims that Manuela was arrested “in flagrante delicto” for murder; that her charges and her rights were read; that she was asked if she could afford a counsel; the time the report was prepared and the lack of her fingerprint on it, which indicates that she did not want to sign it. The petitioners submit that the report is false given that her detention did not conform to the basic arrest requirements. In addition, they assert that there is another report of the same date assigning a public defender to Manuela, which is signed by the counsel and the police, but which also lacks Manuela’s fingerprint; hence the petitioners submit the report was fabricated since Manuela never accepted said counsel. The petitioners allege that in March of that year officials from the Institute of Legal Medicine, through insults and reproaches, forced Manuela’s parents to register the stillbirth. They indicate that consequently, her parents, having incurred in significant debt, were able to travel to register the birth and then the death of the fetus. 5. They indicate that on March 2, 2008, the Justice of the Peace of the City of Cacaopera accepted an order from the prosecutor’s office to conduct an official inquiry for aggravated murder and issue an arrest warrant against Manuela. They claim that on that day the police came to the hospital to ask Manuela to sign a record notifying her of the prosecutor’s order; however, no one ever verbally explained to her the charges, even though she was illiterate and had no defense counsel. They claim that the following day the same public defender was one again assigned to her. They add that the first hearing was conducted without Manuela being present despite the fact that she had not previously talked to her representative; that at the hearing for the review of the precautionary measure, which was maintained, Manuela was represented by another counsel, whom she was unable to reach in spite of having so requested; and that at the preliminary hearing her counsel was once again changed without prior notice. They also claim that the judge found that the offense was sufficiently proved, as he considered that the fetus died as a result of mechanical asphyxiation by upper airway obstruction and severe umbilical cord hemorrhage, the main evidence being the police report allegedly filed by Manuela’s father. They assert that on July 31, 2008, there was a public hearing and the Trial Court of San Francisco Gotera convicted Manuela to 30 years of imprisonment for aggravated murder, and that that was the first time Manuela met her counsel. They claim that on August 11, 2008, the judgment was read out and her public defender did not present an appeal of cassation, the ordinary remedy available at the time, nor did he inform Manuela of the possibility of appealing. 6. In addition, they indicate that Manuela’s mother stopped visiting her in July 2008 given that, as a visitor, the mother was required to undergo vaginal and anal inspections against her will and in insanitary conditions, which had grave consequences to her mental health. Moreover, they claim that while Manuela was deprived of liberty in San Miguel, her health continued declining and that the authorities took her to hospital only one year later, in February 2009. They assert that she was diagnosed with nodular sclerosis Hodgkin’s lymphoma and that she received chemotherapy but was unable to complete the treatment since the prison staff often failed to take her to hospital and forced her to stay in her cell after chemotherapy sessions. They also claim that on September 10, 2009, she was taken to Ilopango Women’s Rehabilitation Center to facilitate her transportation to the National Hospital of Rosales, but that, again, authorities failed to take her to receive the complete chemotherapy treatment. They indicate that Manuela was therefore taken to the hospital in January 2010 and stayed there until April 30, 2010, when she died. 3

Select target paragraph3