40. It is worth highlighting the final comment on this autopsy, which reads: […] It should be underscored that upon receiving the viscera, the uterus and its right and left attachments (ovaries) were completely open. The macroscopic and microscopic review of the uterus and ovaries rule out pregnancy.21 41. The Commission understands this autopsy to be different from and subsequent to the one described in paragraph 33 of this report. Although its exact date was not provided, based on its numbering, the IACHR understands it to have been conducted in 2003. The State did not provide an explanation in this regard. 42. During the public hearing before the IACHR, Petita Albarracín stated that the doctors waited too long to do the autopsy, and that the doctor called her to show her the uterus and told her "this is the uterus and there is no pregnancy." However, she added that the prosecutor had the uterus inspected again and "the doctor told [me] it had been manipulated, scraped, and that it was therefore impossible to tell if Paola had been pregnant.” Ms. Albarracín pointed to the expert witness report of Dr. José María Nájera Ochoa, “which describes all the irregularities involved in the autopsy."22 That expert witness report, dated April 11, 2011, states: 1) the autopsy was conducted without regard for background prior to death; 2) general information that should have been written down was not recorded; 3) no photos were taken; 4) microscopic assessments were made upon simple visual examination of the organs; 5) the hymen were not described; 6) the vagina was not swabbed; 7) the cause and manner of death are not established; 8) the samples were packed poorly; 9) proper chain of custody was not maintained; 10) the color of the samples was different depending on the doctor describing them; 11) it is not clear if the samples seen and sent by the autopsy doctor were the same ones analyzed by the pathologist; 12) there is no indication if seven of the samples are necrotic because of the way they were packed and stored; 13) it is interesting that seven of the nine samples were necrotic. (...) If blood samples were taken from the body, human chorionic gonadotropin levels could have been measured to rule out pregnancy.23 43. During the public hearing before the IACHR, Ximena Cortés Castillo, a psychiatric doctor, presented the results of the forensic psychiatric expert report that she had prepared on Paola and her relatives at the request of the petitioner. Among the results, it highlighted the “barbarity of the autopsy” conducted on Paola's body, as the doctor in charge of it showed Ms. Petita Albarracín the opened body and the organs of her daughter. It also stated that "it had to have been an extremely clumsy process for basic medicine not to inform authorities whether a girl was pregnant or not at the time she died. Forensic medicine can do this easily.” She added that the autopsy and other forensic procedures conducted on Paola's body in the criminal process show a series of technical shortcomings that prevented the facts from being resolved. It stated that the autopsy was conducted without establishing the history prior to the death, which is why some examinations were not done despite the insistence of the mother.24 44. The criminal complaint submitted on October 13, 2003 by Ms. Petita Albarracín against Bolívar Espín for the crimes of sexual harassment, rape, and instigation to suicide refers to three receipts from the obstetrics department of the Hospital Clínica Kennedy that were included in the prosecutor’s preliminary investigation, underscoring the suspicion that Paolo was pregnant when she entered the hospital. It also referred to audio and video recordings of the chief doctor of the Forensics Department of the National Police in which he stated "it cannot at this time be determined if she was pregnant, but there is a significant possibility Attachment 9. Forensic medical autopsy H-2003-11502 of the Leopoldo Izquieta Pérez National Institute for Health and Tropical Medicine. Attached to the communication of the petitioner of October 14, 2014. 22 Public hearing held on October 19, 2015. 23 Attachment 10. Expert witness report of Doctor José Mario Nájera Ochoa. Attached to the communication of the petitioner, October 14, 2014. 24 Public hearing held on October 19, 2015, before the IACHR. 21