participate in it proposed by those who are not party to the case.”8 The autopsy was conducted on July 25, 1992.9 25. As part of the case, on June 24, 1993, the forensic experts Carlos Fernando Leoncio Poggi and Florencio Casavilla submitted an expert report that was later declared null and void. On October 4, 1993, the correctional judge filed a complaint ex officio against them for falsification of a public instrument. This complaint gave rise to the case filed under docket No. 21.375/96, which shall be described in detail below. 26. The Medical School of the National University of Buenos Aires was requested to provide their expertise; however, the Medical School reported that it could not grant the request.10 The Medical Examiners Corps was then requested to designate other forensic physicians specializing in gynecology and obstetrics.11 On April 25, 1995, the physicians Schiavo, Papagni, Wikinski, Arlía, and Castex of the Medical Examiners Corps drafted an expert report.12 The Commission has not received a copy of said report. 27. The petitioners state that Judge Ángela Mónica Braidito questioned one of them, who “with great difficulty” said that the patient was indeed at high risk.13 In their expert report, they indicated that the blood pressure readings appearing in the medical record showed abnormalities and pointed to a minimum gestational syndrome that is equivalent to mild preeclampsia and indicated the advisability of admitting the patient to the hospital.14 28. On December 16, 1998, National Investigating Criminal Prosecutor No. 14 formally charged Dr. Patricia Carmen Anido and Dr. Eduardo Mario Negri, professionals of the Hospital Público Sardá, with manslaughter and requested a suspended sentence of three years prison and nine years of special disqualification from practicing medicine. In his accusation he referred to the “intentionally eclectic and contradictory nature of the many medical reports.”15 He claimed the following grounds for his accusation: […] many procedural actions rendered null and void, an abundance of taking of evidence with findings and even criminal cases being processed based on them, leading to “investigations of the investigation,” which, to date, are in the process of being explained. All of this has entailed making a huge effort above and beyond what is normal for the gathering of elements for the purpose of securing sufficient evidentiary weight in order to move forward with them. […] because of an excessively voluminous case, which has conspired against procedural time-limits governing the case and even dooming it to the shroud of statutory limits in the case regarding certain persons charged. […] I must also highlight the statements of the witnesses HORACIO ANTONIO SCHIAVO at pages 450/1 and HECTOR NICOLAS PAPAGNI at page 452, where they pointed out coincidentally that, for the visits made by the woman on April 6 and May 5, the attending physicians should have taken other precautions with the patient, because for the first checkup she should have been admitted to the hospital and for the second they should have ordered more thorough tests. […] Likewise, the responses from the National Academy of Medicine are of interest in the matter […] From said report the accepted classification of high blood pressure during the pregnancy can be concluded […] pointing out that, according to the Secretariat for Public Health of the Nation, as the first pathological reading, that of 140/90 mm HG in women with normal blood pressure when not pregnant. They point out as well the various degrees of gravity of the clinical pictures and the need for outpatient monitoring or admittance to the hospital in line with the patient’s gravity, stressing that high blood pressure during pregnancy jeopardizes both the mother’s health According to what is indicated in the expert report of May 7, 1997, signed by the physicians Pérez de Pliego, Rodríguez Girault, Aldo Ludueña, and Jarazo Veira. Annex to the initial petition. 9 According to what is indicated in the expert report of May 7, 1997, signed by the physicians Pérez de Pliego, Rodríguez Girault, Aldo Ludueña, and Jarazo Veira. Annex to the initial petition. 10 According to what is indicated in the expert report of May 7, 1997, signed by the physicians Pérez de Pliego, Rodríguez Girault, Aldo Ludueña, and Jarazo Veira. Annex to the initial petition 11 According to what is indicated in the expert report of May 7, 1997, signed by the physicians Pérez de Pliego, Rodríguez Girault, Aldo Ludueña, and Jarazo Veira. Annex to the initial petition 12 According to what is indicated in the expert report of May 7, 1997, signed by the physicians Pérez de Pliego, Rodríguez Girault, Aldo Ludueña, and Jarazo Veira. Annex to the initial petition 13 Initial petition. 14 According to what is indicated in the complaint of the extraordinary legal remedy of December 23, 2003. Annex to the brief of March 30, 2009 from the petitioners. 15 Indictment of December 16, 1998. Annex to the initial petition. 8 5