44. The appellant filed a writ of cassation, which was dismissed on October 20, 1999 by the National Criminal Cassation Court. On November 2, 1999, a recourse of complaint was filed against the rejected cassation, which was dismissed on March 30, 2000. 45. On May 8, 2000, an extraordinary federal appeal was filed that also sought recusal of “the members of the Supreme Court of Justice […] for the purpose of establishing a high court with members who do not have any authority over the MEDICAL EXAMINERS CORPS.”35 This appeal was ruled inadmissible by the National Criminal Cassation Court on October 17, 2000 because it questioned the assessment of evidence and because it failed to provide any grounds that would prove arbitrariness. B.4 Civil proceedings for damages. File 42,229/94 46. A civil suit was filed by Miguel Ángel Avaro, on May 31, 1994, against the physicians responsible for the care of Cristina Brítez Arce; against the Sardá Hospital and against the Government of the City of Buenos Aires for negligence, incompetence and carelessness. 47. On July 24, 2000, Dr. E.B. presented the ninth expert opinion in this case, as ordered by the civil judge. The document stated that Ms. Brítez Arce was “38 years of age with a background of high blood pressure prior to the pregnancy,” which are factors of risk for arterial hypertension. The pregnancy of Ms. Brítez Arce could thus be considered as a high risk to develop arterial hypertension. However, he added that “the treatment followed by the physicians not to perform a Cesarean section and to induce labor for delivery was the adequate one in terms of form, place and method.”36 48. On November 27, 2008, Dr. A.M.C., proposed by the claimant, submitted the 10th expert opinion on the matter. Among his observations, he stated that “there was hypertension and an important weight gain in the current pregnancy […] all of which tends to establish a condition of PRE-ECLAMPSIA.” With respect to the ultrasound scan of May 19, 1992, he indicated that “on the basis of the gestation period, she was 39 weeks pregnant, but it was mistakenly reported that she was at 36 weeks […]. This placenta concerns a pregnancy carried to full term with possible signs of ageing. This points to admitting Ms. Brítez Arce to the hospital and conducting routine lab tests, examining fetal maturity, blood cholesterol levels, ocular fundus, (to detect infarcts in the retina and partial detachments in the retina), measuring blood pressure twice a day, monitoring urine, etc. […]. Admittance to the hospital is not an indication of an enlightened person but rather the result of observation and experience that are clearly manifest.”37 The expert also pointed out that Ms. Brítez Arce was not prescribed any kind of diet, which indicated a failure to provide preventive measures. 49. On November 25, 2009, a lower court rejected the claim because, among other reasons, it was not possible to determine conclusively the cause of the death of Ms. Brítez Arce, since an autopsy was not performed immediately after her death and because the criminal judge could not make a connection between the event in question and the acts of the accused physicians. 50. On February 7, 2012, the Civil Appeals Court confirmed the dismissal of the complaint. On May 8, 2012, it rejected the extraordinary appeal against that decision. 35 Special Federal Appeal of May 8, 2000, filed by René Federico Garrís (evidence file, f. 353). 36 Expert opinion of Dr. E.B. of July 24, 2000 (evidence file, f. 365). Expert opinion of Dr. E.B. of July 24, 2000. Expert opinion of Dr. A.M.C. of November 27, 2008 (evidence file, f. 375). 37 13