11 47. On October 31, the judge summoned Drs. Guerrero, Taranto, and Bohórquez to 51 appear. On November 12, 2001, Emilio Guerrero reported that he was unable to give a statement 52 because his counsel had only notified him of the appointment that same day. On November 12, Dr. Héctor Luis Taranto Ortiz confirmed the findings and the operation he performed on the victim on July 12, 53 2000. On November 13, 2001, Dr. Jenny Bohórquez stated that on July 1, 2000, in conjunction with Dr. Guerrero, she had conducted a physical examination of Ms. Suárez Peralta, in which it was concluded that the patient was suffering acute appendicitis, “and so we decided to operate, with myself as the lead 54 surgeon in the operation and Dr. Guerrero serving as my assistant […].” 48. On November 13, 20, 2001, the complainant filed requests for the investigation to be 55 closed to prevent further delays in the proceedings. On November 27, the First Criminal Judge of Guayas, Ángel Rubio Game, ruled the reopened investigation closed because the deadline had passed, ordered the chief complainant to file a formal accusation, and gave instructions that the proceedings be 56 referred to the prosecutor for a ruling to be issued. 49. On November 28, 2001, Emilio Guerrero lodged a defense filing. He maintained that the dehiscence of Ms. Suárez Peralta’s appendicular stump was not caused by a lack of skill, but rather by causes inherent to the patient, such as her cardiopathy, and he ask the judge to indicate a date for taking 57 his statement. On November 29, 2001, the complainant filed a formal accusation against Emilio Guerrero, Wilson Minchala, and Jenny Bohórquez, as well as any other accomplices and accessories 58 after the fact. On November 30, 2001, Emilio Guerrero lodged a complaint with Judge Rubio Game for 59 closing the investigation before he had given a statement and for a lack of dispatch in his documents. 50. On May 13, 2002, more than five months after the conclusion of the reopened investigation, the First Criminal Prosecutor of Guayas, Marcela Estrada Paredes, requested the voiding of all the proceedings since they were expanded to cover Wilson Minchala and requested that an interlocutory order calling for plenary proceedings be handed down, since a prosecutor’s ruling against 60 Emilio Guerrero already existed. On June 6, 2002, the complainant challenged the prosecutor’s ruling …Cont. before the IACHR indicating the steps taken with the complainant’s request other than summoning Dr. Bohórquez to give a statement. 51 Annex 37. Summons of October 31, 2001, for the appearance of Drs. Guerrero, Taranto and Bohórquez. Annex 1 to the initial petition received on February 23, 2006, Case file in Prosecutorial Inquiry No. 2316-2000, p. 119. 52 Annex 38. Document of November 12, 2001. Annex 1 to the initial petition received on February 23, 2006, Case file in Prosecutorial Inquiry No. 2316-2000, p. 125. 53 Annex 4. Statement of Héctor Luis Taranto, November 12, 2001. Annex 1 to the initial petition received on February 23, 2006, Case file in Prosecutorial Inquiry No. 2316-2000, p. 121. 54 Annex 39. Statement of Jenny Bohórquez, November 13, 2001. Annex 1 to the initial petition received on February 23, 2006, Case file in Prosecutorial Inquiry No. 2316-2000 pp. 122 to 124. 55 Annexes 40 and 41: Documents of November 13 and 20, 2001. Annex 1 to the initial petition received on February 23, 2006, Case file in Prosecutorial Inquiry No. 2316-2000 pp. 126 to 128, and 131. 56 Annex 42. Declaration of conclusion of investigation, November 27, 2001. Annex 1 to the initial petition received on February 23, 2006, Case file in Prosecutorial Inquiry No. 2316-2000, p. 132. 57 Annex 43. Document of November 28, 2001. Annex 1 to the initial petition received on February 23, 2006, Case file in Prosecutorial Inquiry No. 2316-2000 pp. 133 to 135. 58 Annex 44. Document of November 29, 2001. Annex 1 to the initial petition received on February 23, 2006, Case file in Prosecutorial Inquiry No. 2316-2000 pp. 151 to 152. 59 Annex 45. Document of November 30, 2001. Annex 1 to the initial petition received on February 23, 2006, Case file in Prosecutorial Inquiry No. 2316-2000, p. 153. 60 The prosecutor held that there had been procedural violations that influenced the decision of the case, since criminal trials cannot admit two prosecutorial rulings for the same facts. The prosecutor also held that the reopened investigation failed to abide by the three-day deadline, stipulated in Article 240 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for the complainant to submit her cont.