Mr. José Delfín Acosta was not necessarily unconscious when he was taken in since an alcohol level of 2.80 grams per thousand is associated with depression of the central nervous system while, on the contrary, cocaine creates euphoria and excites the central nervous system. […] A reading of the two autopsies tells us that the traumas described therein are the result of a blow or knocking with or against a hard object and from a forensic medical point of view nothing more can be said to amplify that conclusion. […] Once a person dies, vital metabolic functions cease, so that the levels of alcohol and cocaine found in the autopsy are basically those at the time of death.76 60. The Medical Board told the investigating judge that the three experts met again on June 29, 1998 and "engaged in a thorough analysis of the material in the file on the case." The expert representing the plaintiffs pointed out that the amount of drugs could have been greater than indicated in the first autopsy, given the average life [effect span] of cocaine. He also stated that the injuries found on the deceased's skull were not such as to have been caused by self-inflicted injuries or convulsions, because "the police versions assert that Acosta 'deliberately threw himself head first on the floor' hitting his head in the floor, in which case the injuries would have been in the front or front-parietal region [,,,] but in no way the temporal region because the shoulders protect when falling. That area is, however, one that third parties can access."77 For their part, the Forensic Medical team experts stated that the head injuries definitely came from a blow against a hard object and that the drug levels found in the body of the deceased were those present at the time of his death, given that "once a person dies vital metabolic functions cease [...]."78 C. Domestic proceedings 61. There is an Official Letter dated April 5, 1996, signed by the Head of Police Station No. 5, Horacio Raúl Bussetti and addressed to the Director of the Ramos Mejía Hospital, asking for delivery of the body of José Delfín Acosta for remittal to the morgue for performance of the corresponding autopsy. The same letter records the fact that summary DUBIOUS DEATH proceedings were being initiated.79 In a letter dated April 9, 1996, José Delfín Acosta's mother, Blanca Rosa Martínez, asked to be considered a plaintiff, and she brought with her the clothes her son had been wearing when he was detained and asked that tests be carried out to ascertain whether they had been washed.80 In an official write dated April 10, 1996, Mrs. Martínez was included as a plaintiff in the preliminary proceedings.81 62. On April 9, 1996, the Uruguayan consul in Buenos Aires asked the judge in the case, Raúl Irigoyen, for information regarding the death of José Delfín Acosta82. 63. On April 11, 1996, Mrs. Rosa Blanca Martínez asked that statements by Rosa Blanca Martínez and by José Delfín's former partner be admitted.83 She also asked that statements be taken from Ms. Barbara McGuire and Ms. Verónica Andrea Brotzman, because "both of them witnessed the detention procedure [...] and could point out that the police operation had not initially been directed against José Delfín, but rather against of the young Brazilian men [...].84 Appendix 39. Expert opinion of the Forensic Medical Team, written by Doctors Armando Maccagno, Roberto Lazcano, and Juan Romi , dated June 26, 1998. Attached to the initial petition. 77 Appendix 40. Expert report by Dr. Hugo Ricardo Nandin. Attached to the initial petition. 78 Appendix 39. Expert opinion of the Forensic Medical Team, written by Doctors Armando Maccagno, Roberto Lazcano, and Juan Romi , dated June 26, 1998. Attached to the initial petition. 79 Appendix 41. Unnumbered Official Letter of Police Station 5, from Horacio Raúl Bussetti to the Director of the Ramos Mejía Hospital, dated April 5, 1996. Attached to the initial petition. 80 Appendix 42. Presentation of the lawsuit on April 9, 1996. Attached to the initial petition. 81 Appendix 43. Official writ (auto) of April 10, 1996. Attached to the initial petition. 82 Appendix 44. Fax No. 371.8328 of April 9, 1996 from the Uruguayan consulate in Buenos Aires. Attached to the initial petition. 83 Appendix 45. Note written by Mrs. Blanca Rosa Martínez on April 11, 1996. Attached to the initial petition. 84 Appendix 45. Note written by Mrs. Blanca Rosa Martínez on April 11, 1996. Attached to the initial petition. 76