6. The petitioners indicate that on June 20, 1998 the female child TGGL, then three years of
age, entered the Catholic University Hospital in the city of Cuenca in the Province of Azuay
where she remained for two days and was then transferred to the Pablo Jaramillo Crespo
Foundation Humanitarian Clinic. They state that she was diagnosed at the clinic with
thrombocytopenic purpura and needed an emergency blood transfusion for which they went to
the Provincial Red Cross in the city of Cuenca for two pints of O RH-positive blood and two
platelets. The blood – which came from the donors HS and LN – was donated at the Provincial
Red Cross of Azuay. It was delivered to the Humanitarian Clinic on June 22, 1998 at
approximately 8:00 p.m. and administered to the child at 9:00 p.m. of the same day.
7. The petitioners allege that after the female child TGGL had been given the blood transfusion,
a HIV/AIDS test was administered to the donor HS, with positive results. 2 As a result, on June
27, 1998, the director of the blood bank of the Provincial Red Cross of Azuay ordered that the
girl be given an HIV/AIDS test, which established that she was infected with the virus. 3 The
petitioners state that she was also given gynecological tests to rule out other potential routes
of contagion.
8. The petitioners allege that the mother of TGGL filed a series of remedies in order to establish
the criminal responsibility of the officials of the Provincial Red Cross of Azuay and obtain
compensation for damages and injury. Specifically, on September 29, 1998 a complaint was
filed with the Fourth Criminal Court of Azuay, which ordered the opening of proceedings on
October 19, 1998. After concluding the investigation, the court ordered a dismissal without
prejudice, which was overturned by the Supreme Court of Justice of Azuay. 4 With the
reopening of the summary proceeding, the expert report prepared by the Laboratory for
Clinical and Epidemiological Virology of the Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium was
incorporated. That report concluded that the “HIV could only have passed to the child [TGGL]
[] from the person indicated as [HS] in two ways: through sexual transmission or transfusion
of contaminated blood products from that person. If the court’s investigations excluded sexual
transmission, from a logical medical perspective, the conclusion must be that the only way HIV
could have spread to the child [TGGL] is through blood transfusion.” 5
9. The petitioners state that after the summary proceeding phase, on September 23, 2001 the
District Prosecutor of Azuay drew up an indictment and ordered the preventive detention of
Mariana de Jesús Ramírez Ramírez as the alleged perpetrator of the crime defined in Article
436 of the Penal Code6 and against Drs. Monsalve Toral and Orellana Quezada as allegedly
guilty of the crime of concealment. On October 29, 2001, the Fourth Criminal Court of Azuay
issued a summons to court based on the fact that “an offense has been proven to exist, i.e.,
infection of the minor child [the girl TGGL] with AIDS, on June 22, 1998 when the [girl]
received a transfusion of platelets prepared with fresh blood from donors for that day, among
them [HS] who was infected [and that] [] it has been demonstrated that Mariana Ramírez
prepared and administered the platelets, demonstrating negligence, carelessness, lack of
precaution, and giving [TGGL] an incurable disease.” 7 In addition, the Fourth Court dismissed
without prejudice the other officials of the Red Cross of Azuay. The petitioners allege that since
Mariana de Jesús Ramírez Ramírez was outside the country, the proceeding against her was
suspended pending her appearance or capture, and on February 28, 2005 the Second Chamber
2 The petitioners refer to the result of the Microelisa HIV antibodies test performed on HS, which yielded the result:
“doubly reactive.” Annex to original petition received by the IACHR on June 26, 2006.
3 The petitioners refer to the results of the Microelisa HIV antibodies test performed on the female child TGGL, which
yielded the result “doubly reactive.” Annex to the original petition received by the IACHR on June 26, 2006.
4 The petitioners indicate that the revocation of the dismissal without prejudice was issued at the request of the
Prosecutor of Azuay. Original petition received by the IACHR on June 26, 2006.
5 The petitioners refer to the expert report from Drs. Juan Peralvo Román and Nardo Vivar Idrovo, March 9, 2001.
Annex to the original petition received by the IACHR on June 26, 2006.
6 The petitioners refer to Article 436 of the Penal Code: “Physicians, pharmacists, or anyone else who, through a lack
of precaution or care, prescribes, dispenses, or administers medications that seriously compromise health shall be
punished with a prison term of six months to one year; if they have caused an illness that seems to be or is incurable,
the term shall be one to three years; and if they have caused death, the term shall be three to five years.” Opinion of
Azuay District Prosecutor, Criminal case No. 257-98, September 23, 2001.
7 The petitioners refer to the summons for trial issued by the Fourth Criminal Court of Azuay, Criminal Case 257-98,
October 29, 2001. Annex to the original petition received by the IACHR on June 26, 2006.

2

Select target paragraph3