15. The petitioners contend that Mr. Vinicio Antonio Poblete Vilches was subjected to major cardiac surgery without his family’s consent, for which an authorization was issued on which, given the family’s refusal, the signature of his wife Blanca Tapia Encina was forged. 16. They claim that following the surgery, on February 2, 2001, Mr. Poblete Vilches was released even though he was presenting “post-operational septic shock, with open drainage, a high temperature, and in a semiconscious state,” and that, since a hospital ambulance was denied, they had to hire a private one. They state that at the time of his release, Mr. Poblete Vilches “had three large wounds on his right side, one stitched and the other two without stitches, and that the wounds were infected.” They add that he was given only six and a half days to recover but that, according to one of the doctors, he should have been given three weeks. They claim that a person and a nurse Cecilia Caniqueo Ralil, both from the Hogar de Cristo, witnessed Mr. Poblete Vilches’s poor condition but that they never gave statements to the corresponding authorities. 17. They report that Mr. Vinicio Antonio Poblete Vilches was readmitted to the Sótero del Río Hospital, where he spent an entire night and day naked on a stretcher without receiving any assistance. They state that after almost a day, the hospital’s director ordered that he be taken to the surgical intensive care unit, but not to the medical ICU which, according to the petitioners, had the instruments that could have saved him, such as an artificial respirator, to which they were refused access with the instruction “get one yourselves.” The petitioners add that Dr. Humberto Montecinos told them that “he was not going to give him another opportunity to live” and that “younger people should be given preference.” The petitioners allege that although “there was no chance of giving him proper treatment, at no time was the family offered the opportunity of transferring him to another public hospital, as protocol required.” The Commission understands that this argument relates to the absence on beds in the ICU and the difficulties to obtain an artificial respirator. This, they argue, constituted an act of passive euthanasia. 18. The petitioners report that there are “contradictions in the different diagnoses of his death”: at the morgue, Mr. Vinicio Antonio Poblete Vilches’s body had “a strip of tape on its chest saying he had died of pulmonary edema,” whereas his death certificate says he died of septic shock and bilateral bronchopneumonia, cardiac arrest, multiorgan failure, and damage to the kidneys. In addition, according to the petitioners, in the hospital morgue, the deceased’s forehead and body were covered with bruises. The petitioners state that they requested an autopsy be performed, but the request was denied; they add that they were unable to contact the hospital’s director and that no one “explained the reason for those actions, or the real causes behind our father’s death.” They further contend that the time of Mr. Vinicio Antonio Poblete Vilches’s death was falsified. 19. The petitioners claim that the nurse who was with him on the night of his death said, “What are you worrying about? We gave the gentleman an injection and he died.” They conclude that “nothing can justify the inhuman treatment he received at that hospital (…) where impunity prevails to this day, with no punishment for the doctors who continue to work in the public health services and to enjoy protection.” 20. As regards the domestic proceedings related to these events, the petitioners allege that the courts failed to hear their complaints because they are poor, as can be seen with the numerous formalities they fruitlessly asked the judicial authorities to pursue, as a result of which years that were essential for clearing up this murder went by. Specifically they spoke of the summons served on the physicians responsible, who never appeared before the courts to give statements during more than seven years of proceedings, even though their places of work had been clearly identified. They also noted that no confrontations were held with the physicians and that there are some witnesses who have not given statements. They claim that the arrest warrant was never enforced. On this point, they explained that a warrant for the arrest of Dr. Luis Carvajal Freire was issued in 2005, but that he was never taken into custody, in spite of being employed at the Sótero del Río Hospital. They also claim that Mr. Vinicio Antonio Poblete Vilches’s body was not exhumed and that no autopsy was carried out. They add that when they appeared before the court, they were 3