and that of the fetus […] Basically, in order to establish the diagnosis and causes of death of BRITEZ ARCE and her unborn child, the expertise conducted by the School of Medicine of the Catholic University of Córdoba appearing at pages 1262/1289 must be taken into account, as it indicates, in its relevant part, that the cause of death was preeclampsia, which was neither diagnosed nor treated. It also points out that, by the second checkup, her medical showed that suffered from hypertensive disorder while pregnant, as well as prior high blood pressure in her previous pregnancy, as indicated by the cardiologist, constituting enough elements to qualify this patient as suffering from preeclampsia. […] In the interpretation of this study, the baseline of the heart rate, the type of variability and the drops in heart rate of the fetus have been omitted […] they did not examine the amniotic fluid nor did they examine her genitals to check her cervix and on that basis determine the feasibility of admitting the patient to the hospital. […] It must be pointed that hyperglycemia may have come from the stress sustained by the patient when being notified that her child was dead […] They also underscore that she was subject to major stress (news of the death of her child). Why did they not wait for the result before subjecting her to another source of stress, that is, labor or childbirth? Conclusion: according to the facts recorded in the Medical Record, the patient suffered from eclampsia, and her acidosis and brain hemorrhage caused her death as a result of an irreversible cardiopulmonary arrest.” The conclusions of the forensic expertise ordered in the papers signed by the Official Medical Examiners DR. HÉCTOR PAPAGNI AND DR. HORACIO SCHIAVO, along with childbirth specialists DR. ANA MARIA BORELLI AND DR. ALBERTO BRAILOVSKT, who submitted dissenting opinions separately, were added to pages 1164/1187. In response to the question asked by this Prosecution, they pointed out that hypertension is the first cause of maternal death in the world, even when it is treated […]. On the basis of those observations they ratify what was indicated by them previously in the section on the advisability of admitting the patient because of her weight gain, blood pressure of Mx. 130 Mn. 90, 38 years of age, preeclampsia indicated in a previous pregnancy, which makes her pregnancy a high-risk one and which constitute the first signs forecasting the storm, and even if she was hospitalized its evolution could not have been ruled out […].16 29. On July 18, 2003, a judgment of acquittal was given to the accused medical staff Negri and Anido, because it was disputed whether or not the deceased had had a high-risk pregnancy “and because the causes of death of the fetus and its mother were unknown, what the Medical Examiners Corps had ruled in the last of the technical examinations added to the case had to be taken into account.”17 According to the judge of the court of first instance, the three key elements of negligence did not appear in the case: 1) objective foreseeability of the outcome; 2) breach of duty or carelessness which would nullify the value of the action; and 3) the objectively imputable outcome that would nullify the value of the action.18. This judgment was appealed by the prosecutor and upheld by the Criminal and Correctional Appeals Court, indicating that “the hypotheses handled in the complaint are probable, but they have not been proven, and the delay in conducting the autopsy does not make it possible to reach definitive conclusions on the cause of death, and therefore it is not possible to determine, with absolute certainty, the reasons for the death, and it is not admissible to attribute responsibility to the accused physicians.”19 In the extraordinary federal appeal, it was stated that the judge of the court of first instance did not take into account the arguments of the complaint regarding the nullification proposed by the introduction of a record from a medical office illegitimately obtained, thus producing “the theory of the fruit of the poisonous tree.” Likewise, it stated that the “essential and decisive” evidence presented by the complaint were not considered in the judgment of the court of first instance nor in the court of second instance. 20 According to what was indicated by both parties, the appeal was declared inadmissible by the Court of Appeals because it was submitted past the time-limits. 2. Case No. 21.375/96 entitled CASAVILLA, Florencio and others s/falsification of a public document, National Criminal Investigation Court No. 3, Secretariat 11021 Indictment of December 16, 1998. Annex to the initial petition. According to what is indicated in the complaint of the extraordinary legal remedy of December 23, 2003. Annex to the brief of March 30, 2009 from the petitioners. 18 According to what is indicated in the complaint of the extraordinary legal remedy of December 23, 2003. Annex to the brief of March 30, 2009 from the petitioners. 19 According to what is indicated in the complaint of the extraordinary legal remedy of December 23, 2003. Annex to the brief of March 30, 2009 from the petitioners. 20 Extraordinary legal remedy of December 23, 2003. Annex to the brief of March 30, 2009 from the petitioners. 21 Being considered by Judge Guillermo Carvajal. Presentation of June 2, 1998 to Dr. Granillo Ocampo, Minister of Justice of the Nation. Annex to the initial petition. 16 17 6