May 21, 1997, because he deemed that the expert report was false and concealed the causes of death of Cristina Britez Arce.39 In said complaint, Mr. Avaro indicated that the plenary expert report was declared null and void by the Fourth Chamber of the Court “because it was suspicious.”40 40. The daily newspaper La Nación, in a 1998 article, contended that, in an interview with Dr. Julio Ravioli, the latter had revealed that, in the plenary ordered by Judge Carvajal a report had been circulated with questions that had been previously answered so that the forensic experts would only have to sign the report.41 Physicians from the Medical Examiners Corps filed a complaint against the newspaper La Nación for damages caused by various press reports that “questioned their professional practice […] especially in connection with the two criminal cases associated with the death of Ms. Cristina Britez Arce and her unborn child in the Mother’s Hospital of Sardá […]. In the ruling of the appeal inferred by La Nación, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation ruled that “the ruling under appeal holding the above-mentioned newspaper liable constitutes an undue restriction on the freedom of expression, and therefore it must be overturned.”42 41. On September 7, 1998, Dr. Julio Alberto Ravioli submitted a witness statement. In that statement, it indicated, among other matters, that “a report signed by more or less 21 forensic physicians reaches the office and that it was that questionnaire with the responses. It came to the office of forensic physicians, because there were five of them who had not yet signed it. This was our first contact with this case.” He also indicated that “in this report the questions were answered and nothing else, without any observations, although every medical examiner’s report generally has a chapter called forensic observations.”43 He pointed out that they requested the case file and that they could not rule on obstetric matters. When they were informed that they could not recuse themselves, they decided to draft a separate report. He indicated that, for conducting the plenary, there was no meeting of the medical examiners nor was there any discussion. He added that there was a third report, signed separately by four general practitioners: Pérez de Pliego, Rodríguez Girault, Aldo Ludueña, and Jarazo Veira. The complaint stated that the Dean himself of the Medical Examiners Corps admitted to having requested three physicians to draft the responses to be circulated to all the medical examiners for them to sign the preestablished ruling.44 Prosecutor No. 6, Areu Franco, requested the issuance of an order to start an investigation because, although there were 87 physicians in the Medical Examiners Corps, only 40 physicians in the plenary signed it in three different reports.45 42. On April 12, 1999, the judge of the case ruled to acquit the physicians who were accused.46. On April 16, 1999, the complaint filed an appeal and requested nullification, for lack of a sufficient statement of reasons, against acquittal of the 31 physicians. In its brief, it stated that the ruling did not take into consideration many of the evidentiary elements that were submitted by the complaint and which were of the utmost importance.47 43. On August 6, 1999, a ruling was issued indicating that “the ruling of the investigating judge is substantiated, so that the dispute about its content cannot lead to the sanction that is requested.”48 As for the merits, the court reviewed the expert reports prepared for both case 2.391 and case 21.375. The ruling points out that it must be “stressed that this is a third proceeding in which the cause of death of Cristina Britez de Arce (sic) is not investigated, rather they debate whether or not there was a crime perpetrated by the physicians who conducted the expertise, requested by the judge hearing the case, in connection with another expertise carried out by Dr. Casavilla and Dr. Poggi.”49. It also indicates that the three judgments made by the medical examiners “differ in their technical observations, but that, in terms of substance, their conclusions are identical”; that is how said rulings were transcribed. There is also a reference to the expertise of the Catholic University of Córdoba, and it was concluded that “the falsification consists of saying something contrary to the specific Complaint filed by Mr. Miguel Ángel Avaro with the Investigating Court. Annex to the brief of September 4, 2003 from the petitioners. Complaint filed by Mr. Miguel Ángel Avaro with the Investigating Court. Annex to the brief of September 4, 2003 from the petitioners. 41 News story from La Nación. Annex to the initial petition. 42 Ruling on the appeal, June 24, 2008. Annex to the brief of March 30, 2009 from the petitioners. 43 Witness statement by Dr. Julio A. Ravioli. Annex to the initial petition. 44 Complaint appeal filed by the complainants on November 2, 1999. Annex to the initial petition. 45 Presentation of June 2, 1998 to Dr. Granillo Ocampo, Minister of Justice of the Nation. Annex to the initial petition. 46 State’s briefs of July 19, 2005 and September 27, 2018. 47 Appeal filed on April 16, 1999. Annex to the initial petition. 48 It is entitled as 11.267 – Medical Examiners Corps. Appeal court judgment of August 6, 1999. Annex to the initial petition. 49 Appeal court judgment of August 6, 1999. Annex to the initial petition. 39 40 9