59 213. On February 2, 2002, the field experts who conducted the removal of the bodies in November 2001 issued a criminology report242 indicating, inter alia, that “it can be established that the attack[s] were perpetrated in the place from which the bodies were removed.” They added that, although the autopsy was unable to determine whether rape had been committed, “owing to the semi-naked conditions in which the bodies were found, it is highly probable that these were […] crime[s] of a sexual nature.” 214. Specifically, with regard to Esmeralda Herrera, they concluded that “owing to the complicated way she had been tied up […] from her waist to her upper extremities, [it was] possible to establish that she was already tied up on her arrival at the scene of the crime”; that, regarding the absence of soft tissue from the thorax to the head it was “possible to establish that […] there was an injury in that area that caused her death,” and that it was “feasible to suppose that the cause of death was by strangling.” 215. Regarding Laura Berenice Ramos, the field experts concluded that, based on the bruising on various osseous tissues, it could “be established that […] she had been severely beaten before she died.” 216. Regarding the criminology reports issued by field experts, the Director of Forensic Medicine informed the Seventh Criminal Court on July 9, 2003, that “experts in on-site criminology are not competent to determine matters that are strictly medical, such as establishing the cause of death of each of the bodies mentioned on the different pages of the case file […];furthermore, it is also not possible for them to establish the possible time of death of each one; this corresponds to the area of forensic medicine.”243 217. The resolution issued by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of Chihuahua on July 14, 2005, concerning the criminology report (supra para. 213), stated that the “experts refer to probabilities, which are only suppositions or conjectures that, owing to their subjective nature, […] are not an appropriate means of obtaining the legal and historic truth of what really happened in this case.”244 218. On November 18, 2005, the Argentine Forensic Anthropology Team (EAAF) performed a second autopsy on the remains of Esmeralda Herrera.245 The team established that the autopsy performed on November 6, 2001 (supra para. 212) had not taken into account the general principles on which a proper forensic autopsy should be based, so that “[s]ince it had not respected these principles, it did not achieve the objectives of a forensic autopsy […]. At some places in the text, there is even some […] confusion [and i]t lacks the necessary thoroughness to make a deferred diagnosis since the autopsy was not complete and complementary tests were lacking.” The EAAF concluded that “[f]rom reading the autopsy, given the poor description of the internal and external examinations, it is not possible to extract valid conclusions which would have allowed a well-grounded hypothesis of the cause of death to be established.” 242 Cf. criminology report issued by experts in the areas of on-site criminology, forensic photography and forensic excavation from the Office of the Attorney General for the state of Chihuahua dated February 2, 2002 (case file of attachments to the application, volume IX, attachment 62, folios 2914 to 2920). 243 Cf. statement made by the Director of the Expert Services and Forensic Medicine Department of the Office of the Attorney General of the state of Chihuahua, contained in a decision signed by the Seventh Criminal Judge of the Morelos Judicial District on July 9, 2003 (case file of attachments to the application, volume IX, attachment 74, folios 2982 to 2983). 244 Cf. judgment of July 14, 2005 delivered by the Fourth Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the state of Chihuahua (case file of attachments to the application, volume X, attachment 83, folios 3422 to 3500). 245 Cf. second autopsy of Esmeralda Herrera Monreal performed by Luis Alberto Bosio on November 18, 2005 (merits case file, volume VII, folio 2481).