30. As referred to previously, the case had its origins in the complaint filed ex officio by the correctional judge for the alleged criminal responsibility of Dr. Florencio Casavilla and Dr. Carlos Fernando Leoncio Poggi for falsification of the expertise given in case No. 2.391. The perpetration of the crimes of false expertise, falsification of a public instrument, and cover-up was reported.22 Afterwards the complaint was extended to include falsification of medical record No. 309420.23 The complaint also requested an administrative inquiry of the physicians Casavilla and Poggi.24 31. Expertise was requested through the good offices of the Director of the National Academy of Medicine, with expertise items.25 The report was submitted on July 11, 1996.26 It was reported that it could not rule on items 4 and 6 because they refer to a specific case not linked to generic problems and where specific situations are at stake.27 32. The physicians were acquitted and both the Public Ministry of the Nation and the complainant filed an appeal. The order of acquittal was overturned and the plenary Medical Examiners Corps was ordered to refrain from ruling on the physicians Casavilla, Poggi, Schiavo, and Papagni for a nonrenewable period of 20 days.28 33. This gave rise to a plenary of the Medical Examiners Corps of the Nation, which was issued on May 21, 1997. According to what was reported by both parties, said plenary was ruled null and void by the Fourth Chamber of the Criminal Court on September 23, 1997, and another expertise was ordered, which was conducted at the Catholic University of Córdoba.29 34. On March 13, 1998, at the request of National Investigating Judge No. 3, medical experts of the Catholic University of Córdoba conducted an “official medical expert report for cross-checking” that of the physicians Poggi and Casavilla. The report was submitted to the judge, by means of a note on the 25th of that month by the Dean of the University, Esteban Trakal. Among the observations of the expert report, the following are noteworthy: The cause of death is preeclampsia which was neither diagnosed nor treated. In the second checkup the medical record showed that she had a hypertensive disorder in the pregnancy which with […] there are enough elements to characterize this patient as having preeclampsia […] More exhaustive monitoring of the mother was also missing during the checkup, such as measuring blood pressure, and since it was already the eighth fetal checkup for this patient, they did not examine her amniotic fluid nor did they carry out any genital examination to confirm the condition of the cervix and thus determine the feasibility of admitting the patient to the hospital (page 688). Examination of the amniotic fluid can be carried out using an invasive method, called amniocentesis, or noninvasive, which is called amnioscopy. […] These techniques are simple and they were not administered. […] the stillborn child that was received during delivery was not described. How is it possible that there is no report that the histopathological examination of the placenta was not requested since it was available (manual extraction) (page 692), when this is done it provides a sound criterion for examination, at least to find out whether or not it is complete. “The placenta is the written page of the pregnancy.”30 […] Conclusion: according to the facts recorded in the medical record, the patient suffered from eclampsia, acidosis, and her brain hemorrhage led to her death from an irreversible cardiopulmonary arrest (folio 693) According to what is indicated in the expert report of May 7, 1997, signed by the physicians Pérez de Pliego, Rodríguez Girault, Aldo Ludueña, and Jarazo Veira. Annex to the initial petition. 23 According to what is indicated in the expert report of May 7, 1997, signed by the physicians Pérez de Pliego, Rodríguez Girault, Aldo Ludueña, and Jarazo Veira. Annex to the initial petition. 24 According to what is indicated in the expert report of May 7, 1997, signed by the physicians Pérez de Pliego, Rodríguez Girault, Aldo Ludueña, and Jarazo Veira. Annex to the initial petition 25 According to what is indicated in the expert report of May 7, 1997, signed by the physicians Pérez de Pliego, Rodríguez Girault, Aldo Ludueña, and Jarazo Veira. Annex to the initial petition 26 According to what is indicated in the expert report of May 7, 1997, signed by the physicians Pérez de Pliego, Rodríguez Girault, Aldo Ludueña, and Jarazo Veira. Annex to the initial petition 27. According to what is indicated in the expert report of May 7, 1997, signed by the physicians Pérez de Pliego, Rodríguez Girault, Aldo Ludueña, and Jarazo Veira. Annex to the initial petition 28 According to what is indicated in the expert report of May 7, 1997, signed by the physicians Pérez de Pliego, Rodríguez Girault, Aldo Ludueña, and Jarazo Veira. Annex to the initial petition. 29 Briefs of July 19, 2005 and September 27, 2018 from the state. 30 Expertise provided by the University of Córdoba on March 13, 1998. Annex to the initial petition. The expertise is provided as part of case 21.735 and annex 2.391. 22 7