26 90. Despite the fact that, when making his preliminary statement, the victim had injuries to his face and ear80 that were clearly visible,81 Judge of First Instance No. 25 did not record this in the proceedings.82 Moreover, there is no record in the case file that the judge of first instance had taken note of the medical appraisals carried out on Mr. Bayarri and, consequently, ordered immediately and ex officio that a thorough medical examination be carried out and an investigation initiated to determine the origin of the evident injuries, as provided for under Argentine law.83 To the contrary, it has been proved that, by express order of this judge, the examination carried out by Dr. Primitivo Burgo, of the Forensic Medicine Corps, on November 28, 1991, was limited to evaluating the injuries to his ears.84 Dr. Primitivo Burgo testified that the victim told him that he had been subjected to electric shocks and that he had undergone other abuse. When he consulted the Court of First Instance by telephone about the scope of the examination he was required to carry out, Dr. Burgo was informed that he should merely evaluate the injuries to the ears.85 80 As certified in the record of the examination of November 24, 1991, signed by Dr. José Cohen, doctor on duty at the Judicial Detention Center of the Courthouse Prison (helpful evidence submitted by the State, exp7176cuerpo3 1992.pdf, pages 127 and 128). 81 Cf. medical certificate signed by Dr. Juan Carlos Basile on November 25, 1991 (file of attachments to the brief with pleadings and motions, folio 3939); sworn statement rendered before National Court of First Instance No. 13 on April 5, 1993, by Dr. Juan Carlos Basile of the Unit 1 prison hospital (file of attachments to the brief with pleadings and motions, folio 4069). See also, decision of August 25, 2005, issued by Chamber VII of the National Criminal and Correctional Appeals Chamber of the Federal Capital (file of attachments to the application, attachment 4.7, folio 627). 82 Cf. preliminary statement of Juan Carlos Bayarri before National Criminal Court of First Instance No. 25 of the Federal Capital on November 24, 1991 (helpful evidence submitted by the State, exp7176cuerpo3_1992.pdf, pages 101 to 114). 83 Cf. official record signed by the Secretary of the case, certifying that there is no request for a medical examination in the case file, as stipulated in article 66bis of the jurisdictional rules of procedure (file of attachments to the pleadings and motions brief, folio 3344). This article establishes that: “When the accused (whether or not he is on trial), a witness, a complainant or any person connected to a proceeding states or presents signs that he has been subjected to unlawful coercion, the judge of the case shall promptly require the Forensic Medicine Unit to make the respective examination. To avoid delays, the judge shall promptly obtain the authorization of the person who has allegedly been coerced to conduct the complementary tests, biopsies or analyses that require his express consent, and this must be forwarded to the experts forthwith. Within 24 hours, the doctors shall examine the person who has allegedly been coerced and prepare an exhaustive report on any injuries found, detailing their nature, gravity, data, probable mechanism that produced them, and any other conclusions that, in the opinion of the experts, could contribute to the respective investigation, notwithstanding any complementary examinations that are pending (Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 223). The experts’ report shall be added to the complaint ex officio and lots shall be drawn to determine the court that will intervene. Once the documents have been received, two certified copies of the complaint and of the experts’ report shall be made, duly certified by the court that was selected, noting the date they were received. The first copy shall be sent to the Chamber to be filed in a special archive kept, by the name of the accused and the assignment of the case, in the Pro-Secretariat of “Patronatos.” The second copy shall be forwarded to the original court, to be added to the respective case file. The representatives of the Attorney General’s Office (Ministerio Público) shall monitor strict compliance with this provision.” 84 Cf. testimony of Primitivo Burgo of the Forensic Medicine Unit rendered on July 14, 1992, before National Criminal Court of First Instance No. 13 of the Capital of the Argentine Republic (file of attachments to the application, attachment 1.3, folio 13); testimony of Juan Carlos Bayarri rendered on January 8, 1992, before National Criminal Court of First Instance No. 13 of the Capital of the Argentine Republic (file of attachments to the pleadings and motions brief, folios 3337 and 3338), and decision issued by the National Criminal and Correctional Appeals Chamber on April 1, 1997, in the case, “Ramírez, Miguel A. and another – Unlawful Coercion – dismissal of proceedings (file of attachments to the pleadings and motions brief, folios 4841 to 4847 and file of attachments to the application, attachment 1(1), folios 02 to 08). 85 Cf. testimony of Primitivo Burgo of the Forensic Medicine Unit rendered on July 14, 1992, before National Criminal Court of First Instance No. 13 of the Capital of the Argentine Republic (file of attachments to the application. attachment 1.3, folio 13).