interpret the information available to them. In addition, it affirmed that their conclusions were “unsubstantiated” and that most of the data in the medical record were interpreted erroneously and did not accord with what actually happened. 39. On October 21, 2002, the Appeals Court upheld the decision of the lower court that acquitted Drs. C.P. and F.C. after taking into account the eighth expert opinion that was presented by the Academic Unit of Obstetrics of the Hospital of Clinics, part of the Medical School of the University of Buenos Aires, which stated, among others, that Cristina Brítez Arce was not a highrisk patient and had a pregnancy of normal evolution and that the care provided to her was adequate. It concluded that “it has not been proved that the accused are responsible for the criminal conduct that has been attributed to them.”31 B.3 Case 27,985/98 40. On April 1, 1998, Miguel Ángel Avaro, father of Ezequiel Martín Avaro and Vanina Verónica Avaro, presented a criminal complaint against the 31 physicians who issued the plenary expert opinion of May 21, 1997, claiming that it contained false information and that it concealed the causes of the death of Cristina Brítez Arce. 41. On September 7, 1998, Dr. J.A.R. submitted a statement in which he claimed that “a report signed by some 21 forensic physicians reached the office and that it was that questionnaire with the responses […]. This was our first contact with this case.” He also indicated that “in this report the questions were answered and nothing else, without any observations.”32 He pointed out that “they requested the case file and that they could not rule on obstetric matters.” When they were told that they could not recuse themselves, they decided to draft a separate report. He indicated that “for conducting the plenary, there was no meeting of the medical examiners nor was there any discussion.” He added that there was a third report, signed separately by four general practitioners: P.P., R.G., A.L. and J.V. The complaint stated that the Dean of the Medical Examiners Corps admitted to having asked three physicians to draft the responses to be circulated among all the medical examiners and for them to sign the already drafted ruling. The Prosecutor asked that a request for an investigation be issued to determine why, although there were 87 physicians in the Medical Examiners Corps, only 40 in the plenary signed it in three different reports. 42. On April 12, 1999, the judge acquitted the 31 accused physicians. On April 16, 1999, the representative of the victims appealed the acquittal and requested its nullification for lack of sufficient grounds. In his brief, he affirmed that the decision did not take into consideration many of the evidentiary elements that had been submitted. 43. On August 6, 1999, the acquittals were upheld. The tribunal carefully examined the expert opinions prepared for Case No. 2,391 and Case No. 21,375 in which it is indicated that the three opinions of the medical examiners “differ in their technical observations, but that in terms of substance, their conclusions were identical.”33 As to the expert opinion of the Catholic University of Córdoba, it concluded that “the falsification consists of saying something contrary to the specific knowledge of the person making the statement […]. Thus, a mere discrepancy with other experts over the conclusions that were reached does not establish the offense that is now being charged.”34 31 Judicial Branch of the Nation. Appellate decision of October 21, 2002, (evidence file, f.185). 32 Statement of Dr. J.A.R. of September 7, 1998 (evidence file, ff. 233 – 236). 33 First Chamber of Criminal Appeals. Decision of August 6, 1999 (evidence file, f. 22). 34 First Chamber of Criminal Appeals. Decision of August 6, 1999 (evidence file, f. 32). 12