7. They assert that thanks to the support from the petitioning organizations that heard the case,3 on October 27, 2011, Manuela’s father filed a disciplinary and criminal complaint against her defense counsel for participating in the forgery of the legal document that notified Manuela’s arrest. They also claim that on November 17, 2011, the father lodged a petition to obtain a copy of Manuela’s medical record from the National Hospital of Rosales, which was rejected given that under the “Technical Rules for the Departments of Statistics and Medical Files from National Hospitals, of the Ministry of Public Health and Social Welfare, Planning Directorate, Health Information Unit,” medical records can be accessed only by the Police, the Prosecutor’s Office, the Attorney General’s Office, and federal judges. Moreover, they indicate that on December 20, 2011, Manuela’s father lodged an action for review given that the judgment was illegal, as it was based on complaint allegedly lodged by him. They indicate that on January 30, 2012, the Trial Court of San Francisco Gotera overruled the appeal on the grounds that the matter was not based on said police report but on the treating physician’s complaint. They claim that said court also alleged formal aspects that are not established in the Code of Criminal Procedure. They indicate that domestic remedies have been exhausted inasmuch as once an action for review has been rejected, it cannot be appealed. 8. The petitioners allege the applicability of the exceptions set forth in Article 46.2(a) and (b) of the ACHR and Article 31.2(a) and (b) of the Commission’s Rules. As to the alleged lack of a suitable legal remedy, they claim that, in connection with the deficiencies in the health and legal services, no remedy can have an effect on the criminal proceedings, since Manuela’s death terminates the criminal action. In addition, they indicate that the criminal proceedings do not afford an appeal that meets the basic requirements of a second instance, given that a motion to vacate a judgment (which was the only remedy available against a first instance conviction) was applicable on condition that said judgment was based on the nonobservance or wrongful application of a legal norm, and had a restricted number of such shortcomings. Moreover, they claim that given the specificity and the technical nature of said remedy, Manuela was deprived of the opportunity to access a reconsideration of the completeness of the evidence, and of the account and attribution of the facts fabricated by the Prosecutor’s Office. Moreover, concerning the purported deficiencies in the health system, they assert that a criminal complaint for malpractice or manslaughter is not applicable, since Manuela’s death was the result of a series of violations of her integrity perpetrated by several state agents. They indicate that the only possibility might be filing a claim for direct reparations for lack of medical treatment; however, they also indicate that under the law governing the administrative law court it is possible to challenge only the lawfulness of administrative acts performed by the public administration, as long as the latter issues an administrative record. Therefore, they claim that Manuela’s family members cannot resort to such jurisdiction. In this regard, they claim that the violations of Manuela’s rights are not a consequence of an act of an administrative nature, but of acts and omissions on the part of different state agents, such as health service providers, the staff of the prisons where she was detained, police officers, officials from the prosecutor’s office and judges that participated in Manuela’s case. As a result, they assert that Manuela’s family members cannot resort to the administrative jurisdiction. Likewise, the petitioners indicate that while Manuela was alive, she was deprived of her right to exhaust domestic remedies since she was unable to file a motion to vacate the judgment due to the ineffective assistance of her State appointed counsel.. They claim that, based on the foregoing, the exception set forth Article 46.2(b) of the ACHR and in Article 31.2(b) of the Rules of Inter-American Commission is applicable. 9. As a result of the aforementioned facts, the petitioners allege violations of the rights to life; to be free from cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment; the right of all persons deprived of liberty to be treated with dignity; to access a fair trial; to personal freedom; to freely and fully exercise the rights protected by the ACHR without discrimination, in connection with all of the State’s obligations to refrain from acts and practices of violence against women and to adopt measures to eradicate customary patterns that encourage the tolerance of such violence. In addition, they allege the violation of the right to personal integrity to the detriment of Manuela’s father, mother, children, and sister; particularly, the violation of their right to be free from cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment; the right to privacy; and Manuela’s mother’s right of the family, as she was subjected to vaginal and anal inspections as a requirement to visit her daughter in prison. 3 Center for Reproductive Rights and Colectiva de Mujeres para el Desarrollo Local. 4

Select target paragraph3