called.109 On February 12, 1998, the attorney requested appointment of the experts.110 On February 17, they were appointed and on March 2 the expert witnesses appeared, accepting the appointment and taking their oath.111 75. On April 6, 1998, the Chief of Police Station 45 of the Argentine Federal Police, as requested of him by the court, forwarded a record of Sebastian’s detention on October 17, 1993 from 16:40 until 21:20 hours at the police station in order to establish his identity.112 76. On August 19 and 20, 1998, the five witnesses called by the petitioner’s attorney appeared, and on August 20, 1998, the petitioner’s attorney waived testimony of the other three additional witnesses called by him in the case.113 On December 1, 1998, the petitioner’s attorney submitted a brief to the judge to report on the status of the medical examinations ordered in the context of the proceedings and requesting the judge to issue a new letter to the Government of the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires to conduct the court-ordered nuclear magnetic resonance.114 On December 10, 1998, the petitioner’s attorney requested that the psychology expert be subpoenaed to submit the expert report under warning of removal of appointment.115 77. On December 18, 1997, the court ruled on the evidence introduced by the EMGE, ordering the issuance of two letters requested by the defendant (including a letter to the Army to report whether there was a record relating to Sebastian) and noting the date of the crossexamination, thus ordering that Sebastian Furlan be subpoenaed to appear before it.116 On February 12, 1998, the cross-examination hearing that had been called by the defendant took place, requesting that Sebastian Furlan be examined.117 On November 12, 1998, the Chief of the General Archives of the Army informed the court that no record relating to Sebastian Claus Furlan appeared in the records of the different offices of the Army.118 On December 23, 1999, the petitioner’s attorney asked the court to find EMGE’s right to cross-examine to be forfeited, in light of the fact that the plaintiff had appeared at the hearing set for this purpose, but that the EMGE had not.119 On 109 Case proceedings file titled “Furlan Sebastian Claus v National State for Damages,” page 99. communication from the State received on October 15, 2008. Annex to 110 Case proceedings file titled “Furlan Sebastian Claus v National State for Damages,” page 100. communication from the State received on October 15, 2008. Annex to 111 Case proceedings file titled “Furlan Sebastian Claus v National State for Damages,” pages 100 back and 105 back. Annex to communication from the State received on October 15, 2008. 112 Case proceedings file titled “Furlan Sebastian Claus v National State for Damages,” page 174. communication from the State received on October 15, 2008. Annex to 113 Case proceedings file titled “Furlan Sebastian Claus v National State for Damages,” pages 197-202. Annex to communication from the State received on October 15, 2008. 114 Case proceedings file titled “Furlan Sebastian Claus v National State for Damages,” page 219. communication from the State received on October 15, 2008. Annex to 115 Case proceedings file titled “Furlan Sebastian Claus v National State for Damages,” page 221. communication from the State received on October 15, 2008. Annex to 116 Case proceedings file titled “Furlan Sebastian Claus v National State for Damages,” page 279. communication from the State received on October 15, 2008. Annex to 117 Case proceedings file titled “Furlan Sebastian Claus v National State for Damages,” page 280. communication from the State received on October 15, 2008. Annex to 118 Case proceedings file titled “Furlan Sebastian Claus v National State for Damages,” page 290. communication from the State received on October 15, 2008. Annex to 119 Case proceedings file titled “Furlan Sebastian Claus v National State for Damages,” page 291. communication from the State received on October 15, 2008. Annex to