13. On December 19, 1996 the Attorney General informed the District Attorney (Ministra Fiscal de Pichincha), Dr. Alicia Ibarra, of the case. On January 10, 1997, the case was opened before the corresponding court (Juez Quinto de lo Penal de Pichincha). On January 23, 1997, the petitioners presented their complaint against the attending physician, pursuant to Articles 456 and 457 of the Penal Code. On January 29, 1997, Judge Jorge German, the Juez Quinto, carried out an extensive initial investigation (sumario) of the case without placing Dr. Montenegro in preventive detention. 14. On July 24, 1998 the petitioners’ lawyer learned that the prosecutor had concluded that a crime had been committed. Despite the prosecutor's conclusion, on December 14, 1998, Dr. Wilson, the Juez Quinto at the time, dismissed the charges against Dr. Montenegro and against Fernando Alarcón. This dismissal included a mistake since it named Fernando Alarcón as one of the physicians when in fact that was not his name. Fernando Alarcón was a witness designated by the Honor Tribunal of the Medical Association. The other accused physician was Dr. Fabián Ernesto Espinoza Cuesta. 15. On December 23, 1998 the petitioners appealed the dismissal. On February 24, 1999 the Sixth Chamber of the Superior Court received the case that was transmitted for consultation to the District Attorney. 16. On June 15, 1999, the petitioners' lawyer again learned the content of the Prosecutor's opinion. Dr. José Marin, the Prosecutor, concluded that the elements of the crime had been proven and that the accused were the authors of a crime set forth and sanctioned by the Penal Code. Further, he stated that the decision of the lower Court should be revoked and the corresponding decision taken to open the plenary stage of the proceedings against Dr. Montenegro and Dr. Espinoza, correcting the mistake in the names committed by the lower court Judge. 17. On December 13, 1999 the Sixth Chamber of the Superior Court, headed by Dr. Pilar Sacoto de Merlyn, declared that the statute of limitations had run out. 18. The crime for which Dr. Montenegro was charged has a ten-year statute of limitations within which the corresponding judicial proceedings must have been initiated. With regard to Dr. Espinoza, the Court declared that, in accordance with Article 253 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the plenary stage of the proceedings was opened. However, the Court continued, due to the fact that the accused is a fugitive, pursuant to Article 254 of the relevant Penal Code (Código Adjetivo Penal), the plenary proceedings are suspended until the accused is apprehended or he presents himself voluntarily before the Court. Dr. Espinoza did not fall within the ten-year statute of limitations because the Hospital refused to reveal his name for more than ten years, and during that time the proceedings against him were suspended. They were renewed when his identity was obtained. 19. On December 16, 1999 the petitioners requested the Sixth Chamber of the Superior Court to revoke the decision that the statute of limitations had tolled and to open the plenary stage of the proceedings in the case against Dr. Montenegro. On February 16, 2000, the Court rejected the petitioners' request for revocation. 20. On March 22, 2000 the petitioners presented a writ of cassation before the Sixth Chamber of the Superior Court that was rejected on April 24, 2000. The petitioners received notification of the Superior Court's decision on April 26, 2000. sustancias nocivas es médico, farmacéutico o químico; o si posee conocimientos en dichas profesiones, aunque no tenga los títulos o diplomas para ejercerlas. 3