the conclusion of the positive probability that the defendant is the author of the offense of the aggravated homicide of her newborn child […].”158 80. On July 23, 2008, a psychiatric appraisal of the presumed victim was added to the case file. During the appraisal, she gave the following account of the facts: During my pregnancy, I fell and the baby came early; I was expecting it in April and the only bad thing I did was go to the toilet and it fell into the tank. I was helped up in a bad way; they took me to the hospital and I cannot remember what happened then; I can’t remember what my family did there. This happened at the end of February, around the 27th; they say that I am guilty, but God known that it is not like that.159 81. On July 31, 2008, the public hearing of the trial against Manuela was held.160 During this procedure, the doctor who had performed the autopsy on the newborn ratified his report and expanded this indicating that, according to optic and hydrostatic docimasia tests “the child could have lived approximately ten to fifteen minutes because he was full-term.”161 He also stated that “it was not possible to refer to it as a miscarriage, because, medically, a miscarriage is any birth of less than twenty weeks; in other words, it is considered that less than five months is a miscarriage and this case relates to a full-term pregnancy of the complete nine months.”162 82. Although the testimony of Manuela’s mother had been offered, she did not make a statement during the public hearing because, at that time, Manuela’s defense counsel asked that it be dispensed with at Manuela’s request.163 The public defender requested her acquittal considering that, even though “the existence of the offense had been demonstrated,” the circumstances surrounding it were unclear.164 I. Guilty verdict 83. On August 11, 2008, the Trial Court of San Francisco Gotera sentenced the presumed victim to 30 years’ imprisonment for the crime of aggravated homicide.165 The court considered that: (1) the newborn had lived for between ten and fifteen minutes and had died due to mechanical asphyxia due to obstruction of the upper airways by the “excreta into which he was thrown”; (2) the newborn “had independent life and legal existence”; (3) “a precise causal relationship existed in the act owing to the immediate temporal sequence between the action of disposing of the newborn to deprive him of his life and the result obtained, which 158 138). Cf. Second Trial Court of San Francisco Gotera, Morazán. Ruling of July 7, 2008 (evidence file, folios 137 and 159 Institute of Forensic Medicine, psychiatric appraisal of July 23, 2008 (evidence file, folio 143). 160 Trial Court of San Francisco Gotera, department of Morazán. Judgment of August 11, 2008 (evidence file, folio 148). 161 150). Trial Court of San Francisco Gotera, department of Morazán. Judgment of August 11, 2008 (evidence file, folio Trial Court of San Francisco Gotera, department of Morazán. Judgment of August 11, 2008 (evidence file, folios 150 and 151). 162 Cf. Record of preliminary hearing of the Second Trial Court of San Francisco Gotera, Morazán, on July 7, 2008 (evidence file, folio 133); Record of the public hearing of the Trial Court of San Francisco Gotera, department of Morazán, on July 31, 2008 (evidence file, folio 5371); Judgment delivered by the Trial Court of San Francisco Gotera, department of Morazán, on August 11, 2008 (evidence file, folios 146 to 168), and Sworn statement of Manuela’s mother of September 3, 2017 (evidence file, folio 2283). 163 Cf. Record of the public hearing of the Trial Court of San Francisco Gotera, department of Morazán, on July 31, 2008 (evidence file, folio 5371). 164 Judgment handed down by the Trial Court of San Francisco Gotera, department of Morazán, on August 11, 2008 (evidence file, folio 168). 165 27